Wheeler v. Reynolds Land Company
| Decision Date | 22 February 1906 |
| Citation | 91 S.W. 1050,193 Mo. 279 |
| Parties | WHEELER, Appellant, v. REYNOLDS LAND COMPANY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. -- Hon W. N. Evans, Judge.
Affirmed.
Albert N. Edwards and Geo. L. Edwards for appellant.
(1) It was error to permit defendant by parol or other evidence to attempt to show the patent issued to plaintiff by Butler county was without consideration. "The general rule in this State is that the consideration clause of a deed is open to explanation; that is to say, that while it is not allowable to show no consideration for the purpose of defeating the operation of the deed as a grant, the true consideration may be shown." Edwards v Latimer, 183 Mo. 626. Many cases decided by this court announce the same rule. Furthermore, if on account of facts and circumstances dehors the patent, it is voidable, Butler county alone can take advantage of such defect. And since the patent is regular on its face, and in all respects, on its face at least, conformable to law, it is not void, and if it can be avoided by Butler county even, it can only be done by an appropriate affirmative action for that purpose. Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 458. Defendant's remedy is to assert its title to the land if it has any. (2) Butler county had the power to compromise the suit commenced against it by plaintiff, and to accept in payment of the purchase price of its swamp lands agreed to be sold him by the terms of the compromise, the amount of money owing by the county to plaintiff as a result of the compromise. This being so, the patent for these lands executed by the county to plaintiff is based upon full payment of the purchase price for these lands as it recites and is therefore valid. Sec. 3422, R. S. 1889 (now sec. 1777 R. S. 1899); Township Board of Education v. Boyd, 58 Mo. 276; Washington County v. Boyd, 64 Mo. 179; Railroad v. Anthony, 73 Mo. 431; Dunklin County v. Chouteau, 120 Mo. 587; Moss v. Kauffman, 131 Mo. 424; State ex rel. v. Adams, 161 Mo. 349; State ex rel v. Butler County, 164 Mo. 214; Morrow v. Pike County, 189 Mo. 610.
L. F. Dinning, Wm. N. Barron and W. M. Williams for respondent.
(1) Section 8197, Revised Statutes 1899, authorizing the sale of swamp land at private sale does not authorize the county courts to make an executory contract of sale. (2) Nor to make a conditional sale based upon a contingency that may never happen. (3) A compromise by a trustee will not be upheld unless the transaction shows that he was actuated by good intentions and exercised due caution and fidelity in respect to the interests of his cestui que trust. (4) A donation by a county court of 20,000 acres of swamp land, by patent regular on its face, will not be upheld in a suit to quiet title, brought by the patentee under sec. 650, Revised Statutes 1899, two years after the date of the patent. Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421. (5) The trial court did not err in excluding the swamp land patent, made by the county, without any consideration whatever, for 20,000 acres of land, when offered by the patentee two years after its date. Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421. (6) The county court had power to sell the swamp land of the county -- not to make a gift of it to appellant. The patent was void because it was issued without authority of law. A void patent confers no title, and cannot be made the basis of an action by the patentee, who knows it was issued contrary to law. Simpson v. County, supra; Walcot v. Lawrence Co., 26 Mo. 272; Book v. Earl, 87 Mo. 246. (7) Where it clearly appears from admitted facts and undisputed evidence that the judgment was for the right party, it will not be reversed on appeal. Newberger v. Friede, 23 Mo.App. 631; R. S. 1899, sec. 865. (8) Nor when this court is satisfied that the result of a new trial will necessarily be the same. State ex rel. v. Benedict, 51 Mo.App. 642; Conley v. Doyle, 50 Mo. 234; Bank v. Kemble, 61 Mo.App. 209. (9) Appellant, claiming under a swamp land patent issued by the county, without consideration, to himself, in 1899, admits that respondent claims under a prior conveyance, made by the county, in 1867, reciting a cash consideration. The judgment will not be reversed upon appeal, as the appellant is not prejudiced by the action of the trial court, and the result of a retrial must be the same. State ex rel. v. Benedict, 51 Mo.App. 642; Conley v. Doyle, 50 Mo. 234; Bank v. Kemble, 61 Mo.App. 209.
This is a suit under section 650, Revised Statutes 1899, to quiet title to about 4,300 acres of land in Butler county, the same being a part of the swamp and overflowed land granted by the United States to the State of Missouri under the act of Congress of date September 28, 1850, conveyed by patent from the United States to the State of Missouri, and by the State to Butler county. The petition states that the land was conveyed to the plaintiff by Butler county by patent duly executed; that it is not in the actual possession of anyone, but is wild and uncultivated; that defendant claims some title in it which is adverse and prejudicial to that of plaintiff. The prayer is that the court ascertain and determine the estate, title and interest of plaintiff and defendant respectively, and define the same by its judgment or decree.
The answer admits that it is swamp and overflowed land granted by the United States to the State of Missouri and by the State to Butler county, and that defendant claims to be the owner of the same, but denies that it is wild and unoccupied, and denies that plaintiff has any valid estate in it; avers that the alleged patent from Butler county to the plaintiff was without consideration; that it is void and of no effect; that the defendant is the sole and absolute owner; that defendant and those under whom it holds have been claiming the land under patents from the county prior to 1880 and have been paying taxes thereon for more than twenty years prior to the act of March 14, 1901, amending section 9187, Revised Statutes 1899, by adding thereto a proviso the purpose of which was to quiet swamp land titles. Reply, general denial.
At the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the patent from the State to the county, reciting for its authority the act of the General Assembly of March 10, 1869, and the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, and conveying to the county all the swamp and over-flowed lands within its borders. Then the plaintiff offered in evidence a patent from the county of Butler purporting to convey him certain lands described as swamp lands aggregating 19,987.98 acres, including the land in question in this suit, and reciting that the lands were purchased by the plaintiff from the county on the 29th of July, 1899, and that he had made full payment for the same to the county in sum of $ 24,984.97. To the admission of this patent in evidence the defendant objected on the ground that it was executed without consideration and in violation on the part of the county of its duty as trustee of the land, and the defendant asked leave to introduce evidence to sustain that objection. The plaintiff objected to allowing the defendant to introduce evidence on that point at that stage of the trial, but the court overruled the objection and exception was taken.
The defendant then introduced evidence tending to prove as follows:
The county court intending to sell all the swamp land within the county, invited bids for the same, to be received up to a certain hour on June 16, 1894. There were six bids received from that number of different bidders, ranging as follows: $ 1.35, $ 1.40, $ 1.42, $ 1.50, $ 1.57 1-2 and $ 1.65, the last and highest being the bid of the plaintiff in this suit, George B. Wheeler.
The plaintiff's bid, which was in writing, proposed to purchase all the swamp lands owned by the county and to pay into the county treasury $ 3,000, as a first payment, and the balance within ninety days On June 21st, 1894, the county court made an order accepting the plaintiff's proposal, reciting that it included what was known as the railroad lands; conditioned that the $ 3,000 mentioned in the bid be paid into the county treasury within five days, the same to become forfeit if Wheeler should fail to pay the entire amount of the purchase money according to his bid of June 16th, and that he enter into a written contract to perform the conditions in that bid expressed. The $ 3,000 were paid into the county treasury on that day. On August 16, 1894, by order entered on its record of that date the county court appointed one Graddy as the county's agent to execute the contract referred to in the previous order. Thereupon a contract in writing of that date was executed by Graddy, acting as agent for the county, and the plaintiff herein in person, which, after reciting the Wheeler bid of June 16th, and its terms and conditions, the order of the county court of June 21st, accepting the bid with the conditions in that order contained, and the payment of the $ 3,000 as above stated, covenanted and agreed that the county would sell to the plaintiff 53,977.23 acres "heretofore pretended to be conveyed by Charles W. Addy as commissioner of Butler county to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company," and 3,959.37 acres likewise conveyed by another deed of a commissioner of the county, the record book and pages where those deeds are recorded being specified, and all other swamp or overflowed lands in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial