Wall v. Hanford.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1910
• Citation: 142 Mo. App. 395,127 S.W. 111
• Parties: WALL et al. v. HANFORD.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

127 S.W. 111

142 Mo. App. 395

WALL et al. v. HANFORD.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 4, 1910.

1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (§ 231) — BONA FIDE PURCHASER — NOTICE — RECORD OF DEED — EFFECT OF DESTRUCTION.

The destruction of the records containing the record of a deed does not destroy the deed or the legal notice imparted by it.

2. TAXATION (§ 531) — VOLUNTARY PAYMENT BY STRANGER — RECOVERY AGAINST OWNER.

One who, without title or right in property, voluntarily pays the taxes thereon, acquires no lien therefor and cannot recover the amount paid against the owner.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dent County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by Christy Wall and others against Lewis M. Hanford. From the judgment rendered, plaintiffs appeal. Modified and affirmed.

W. P. Elmer, for appellants. E. W. Bennett and Harry Clymer, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The United States issued a patent September 1, 1859, to George P. Wetmore, to 280 acres of land in Dent county, Mo. Wetmore, on May 3, 1860, conveyed the land to James Devoy and Christy Wall. That deed was filed for record May 11, 1860, and duly recorded. On the 3d day of May, 1866, the records of deeds in Dent county were totally destroyed by fire, and this deed was again filed for record January 23, 1908. George P. Wetmore, by will, dated July 26, 1869, devised by general words all of his estate to his wife and three children. Subsequent to the making of this will and the death of said Wetmore, this tract of land has gone through the course of being transferred by four other wills, and, like the first will, none of them described the land, but devised by general words. The defendant, when the suit was commenced, claimed through this chain of title, and, but for the deed of George P. Wetmore, would have been the owner of the property. This suit was instituted by Christy Wall and the heirs of James Devoy on July 15, 1907, for the purpose of determining title to said land. The defendant answered, claiming title, and further alleging that he, and those under whom he claimed, had expended and paid out the sum of $200.41 in discharge of taxes assessed against said land from 1869 to 1906. The answer further alleged that, prior to the bringing of this suit, plaintiffs had abandoned any claim to the land and neglected to pay off and discharge the taxes, and asked that, on account of neglect and failure of the plaintiffs to claim said land or to pay said taxes, they were legally estopped from making or asserting any claim to any part of said land. The answer further averred that, if the court found the plaintiffs were the owners of the land, then that they be required to reimburse the defendant for said taxes and interest, amounting in all to $487.62, and that the same be declared a lien against the land. The judgment of the court was for the plaintiffs as to the title, but found for the defendant as to the taxes, and declared the same to be a lien upon the real estate, and from this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

The land is wild, unoccupied, and has never been in the actual occupation of any person. The destruction of the records containing the record of the deed did not destroy the...