Wilkinson v. Wilson

• Citation: 123 So. 847,154 Miss. 726
• Decision Date: 30 September 1929
• Docket Number: 27836
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: WILKINSON et al. v. WILSON et al

123 So. 847

154 Miss. 726

WILKINSON et al. v. WILSON et al

No. 27836

Supreme Court of Mississippi

September 30, 1929

Division B

1 ESTOPPEL. Person waiving lien, to enable another to secure prior lien without contracting to procure such lien, is not estopped from buying superior outstanding title.

Where a person waives a lien for the purpose of enabling another to secure a prior lien and does not contract to procure such lien for such other person or to make any conveyances of property carrying title, such waiver does not estop the person waiving from thereafter buying a superior outstanding title in the third person, where such third person is the purchaser for value in good faith.

2 SUBROGATION. One acquiring lien is entitled to be subrogated to liens discharged by money paid out by him in procuring title to property incumbered.

Where a person acquires a lien upon property and with the money by which such lien is obtained pays prior incumbrances upon the property superior to that of the third person, such lienholder will be subrogated as against such third persons to the liens which had been discharged by the money paid out by such lienholder in procuring title to the property incumbered.

3 EXECUTION. Adequacy of consideration for property purchased at execution sale depends on amount paid, plus incumbrances. Where property is heavily incumbered and is put up for sale under execution and is bought in for a small percentage of its value on such execution sale, the consideration on execution sale is not inadequate if taken in connection with the prior liens against the property bought, which must be settled so the purchaser at execution sale can obtain full title.

4. TRUSTS. Sale of lands by legal title holder, under agreement with

holder of equitable title to whom former sustains trustee relation, conveys legal and equitable title.

Where persons having legal title to lands bought at an execution sale, but in which another person has an equity or equitable title, and as to whom the owner of legal title sustains a relation as trustee, and the owner of such equitable title agrees with the owner of the legal title that he may dispose of the property for benefit of all concerned, and such owner of the legal title does so, and there is no concealment, but on the contrary a full disclosure of all the facts, Such sale by the holder of the legal title to the third person is valid and conveys the title of the land in equity as well as the legal title of the property.

HON. J. LAKE ROBERSON, Special Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Sunflower county. HON. J. LAKE ROBERSON, Special Chancellor.

Suit by H. E. Wilkinson against G. A. Wilson, Jr., and others. From the judgment, plaintiff and certain others appeal. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Reversed and remanded.

J. L. Williams and S.D. Neill, both of Indianola, L. C. Hallam, of Jackson, and J. C. Roberts, of Cleveland, for appellants.

A parson waiving a lien, to enable another to secure a prior lien, without contracting to procure such lien, is not estopped from buying a superior outstanding title. 99 A. S. R., pp. 158, 159, 161, 162, 163.

The mere fact that one pays off a debt at the instance of the debtor, or lends money with which to pay it, does not entitle him to subrogation.

Howell v. Bush, 54 Miss. 437, 440, 445; Good v. Golden, 73 Miss. 91, 95; Bank of Philadelphia v. Posey, 130 Miss. 530, 538; Berry v. Bullock, 81 Miss. 463, 465; Hitt v. Applewhite, 20 So. 161, 162.

Wells, Jones, Wells and Lipscomb and J. M. Stevens, all of Jackson, for appellees.

An execution sale and deed may be void for inadequacy of price.

Bratton v. Graham, 146 Miss. 246, 11 So. 353; Hesdorffer v. Welsh, 127 Miss. 261, 90 So. 3, 23 C. J. 978; Busick v. Watson, 72 Miss. 244; Davis v. Bell, 57 Miss. 320; Taylor v, Eckford, 11 S. & M. 21; Danforth v. Burchfield, 78 So. 904, Notes 5 and 6; Henderson v. Sublett, 21 Ala. 626; Simmons v. Sharpe, 138 Ala. 451, 35 So. 415; Shroeder v. Young, 40 L.Ed. 721; Byers v. Surget, 60 U.S. 19; Howell v. Baker, 4 Johns. Ch. 118; Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289, 300; Hall v. Hallett, 1 Cox, ch. 134; Jones v. Martin, 26 Tex. 57; Blight v. Tobin, 7 T. B. Mon. 612, 18 Am. Dec. 219; Lankford v. Jackson, Id. 650; Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Bennett, 16 So. 185; Rose's notes, Vol. 17, pages 510-511; 161 U.S. 334-345, 40 L.Ed. 721, 16 S.Ct. 512; Ballentyne v. Smith, 205 U.S. 291, 51 L.Ed. 807, 27 S.Ct. 527; Arnold v. Ness, 212 F. 294; Barstow v. Beckett, 122 F. 145; Odell v. Cox, 151 Cal. 74, 90 P. 196; Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 522, 141 S.W. 657; State v. Innes, 137 Mo.App. 427, 118 S.E. 1170; Las Vegas Ry., etc., Co. v. Trust Co., 15 N. M. 649, 110 P. 861; Ex parte Cooley, 69 S.C. 155, 48 S.E. 96; Triplett v. Bergman, 82 Wash. 642, 144 P. 901; Roger v, Whitham, 56 Wash. 194, 134 Am. St. Rep. 1105, 21 Ann. Cas. 272, 105 P. 629; Kissinger v. Zeiger, 138 Wis. 376, 120 N.W. 251; Horse Springs Cattle Co. v. Schofield, 9 N. M. 142, 49 P. 956; Quinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 203, 98 S.W. 485, 13 Rose notes, page 342; Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 180, 29 L.Ed. 839; Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 580, 39 So. 998; Detwiler v. Schutheis, 122 Ind. 166, 23 N.E. 712; Power v. Larabee, 3 N.D. 508, 44 Am. St. Rep. 580, 57 N.W. 790; Young v. Schroeder, 10 Utah 167, 37 P. 254; Davenport v. Moore, 74 F. 953; Ballentyne v. Smith, 205 U.S. 290, 51 L.Ed. 807, 27 S.Ct. 527; American Car & Foundry Co. v. Merchants Dispatch Transp. Co., 216 F. 910; Brophy v. Kelly, 211 F. 31, 128 C. C. A. 382; Layton v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 205 F. 277, 125 C. C. A. 263; McCoy v. Brooks, 9 Ariz. 160, 80 P. 366; Shipley v. Shamwell, 41 App. (D. C.) 273, Ann. Case, 1915A, 1148; Hart v. Hines, 10 App. (D. C.) 375, 376; Benter v. Patch, 7 Mackey (D. C.) 595, 596; 24 A. American Digest, page 983, Key No. 251; Citizens State Bank v. McRoberts, 239 P. 1028; 20 American Digest, page 899, Key Nos. 250 and 251; Wagner v. Yetter, 124 A. 487; 18 A. American Digest, page 926, Key 251; Hyman v. Stern, 215 P. 911; 21 Century Ed., American Digest, page 1331; Phillips v. Wilson, 164 Pa. St. 350, 30 A. 264; Barrett v. Bath Paper Co., 13 S.C. 128; City of San Fancisco v. Pixley, 21 Cal. 56; Georgeson v. Consumers Lbr. Co., 31 P. 257; Thomas v. Hebenstreit, 68 Ill. 115; Reed v. Carter, 3 Blackf. 376, 26 Am. Dec. 422; Wood v. Young, 38 Iowa 102; Cummings v. Little, 16 N.J.Eq. (1 C. E. Green) 48; Fullerton v. Seiper (Ch.), 34 A. 680; Chapman v. Boetcher, 27 Hun. 606; McLaury v. Miller, 64 Tex. 381.

An agreement to waive a prior mortgage in favor of a subsequent purchaser, or subsequent mortgagee is perfectly valid.

41 C. J. page 512; Brown v. Barber, 244 Mo. 138, 151, 148 S.W. 892; San Francisco First Nat. Bank v. Detroit Trust Co., 248 F. 16, 160 C. C. A. 156 (certiorari den.) 247 U.S. 513, 38 S.Ct. 579, 62 L.Ed. 1243; Improved Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Larkin, 88 N.J.Eq. 52, 101 A. 1043; Sanders v. Barlow, 21 F. 826; Clarke v. Calvert, 72 A.D. 630; 78 N.Y.S. 17; Bender v. Seigel, 1 Lehigh Val. L. R. (Pa.) 62; Loewen v. Forsee (Mo.), 35 S.W. 1138; Lichstern v. Forehand, 181 Wis. 216, 224, 194 N.W. 421; Joralmon v. McPhee, 21 Colo. 26, 71 P. 419; McCreery v. Charlton, 185 Cal. 37, 39, 195 P. 670; Hunt v. Daniels, 15 Ia. 142; Poland v. Mamiolle Valley R. R. Co., 52 Vt. 144, 14 Am. Law. Rev. 539; Bank of England v. Tarleton, 23 Miss. 173; Donley v. Hayes, 17 Ser. & R. (Pa.) 407; Mechanics Bank v. Bank of Niagara, 9 Wend R. (N. Y.) 410; Collum v. Erwin, 4 Ala. R. 458; Landon v. Keith, 9 Verm. R. 300; Goar v. McCanless, 60 Miss. 244; 21 C. J., pages 1210-11.

If one purchases real estate subject to a prior mortgage the recitals in his deed estop him from disputing the existence of a prior mortgage. Not only is there estoppel by deed, but there is an estoppel by contract, as well as estoppel in pais.

5 Thompson on Real Property, par. 4484; 21 C. J., page 1110; Bigelow Est. (5 Ed.), p. 450; Bricker v. Stroud, 56 Mo.App. 183 (1881); Cain v. Texas Bldg., etc., Assoc., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 61, 51 S.W. 879 (2); Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Hofius, 20 Wash. 272, 55 P. 54; McLeod v. Johnson, 96 Me. 271, 52 A. 760; McCord v. Hill, 117 Wis. 306, 94 N.W. 65; National Hardwood Co. v. Sherwood, 165 Cal. 1, 130 P. 881; Moffatt v. Fout, 99 Kan. 118, 160 P. 1137; Nation v. Planter's Bank, 29 Okl. 819, 119 P. 977; 21 C. J., page 1146; Newman v, Delta Grocery & C. Co., 144 Miss. 877, 110 So. 686; Wardlaw v. Rayford, 27 S.C. 178, 3 S.E. 71; Stewart v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443, 29 S.W. 380; McCroskey v. Mills, 32 Colo. 271, 75 P. 910; Wilson v. Hall, 150 Ky. 663, 150 S.W. 823; East Greenwich Inst. for Sav. v. Kenyon, 20 R. I. 110, 37 A. 632; Fields v. Napier, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 240, 80 S.W. 1110; Hendricks v. Kelly, 64 Ala. 388; McBane v. Wilson, 8 F. 734; Smith v. Munger, 93 Miss. 627, 47 So. 476.

Privies of a grantor or grantee are estopped to the same extent as the original parties to the deed, and may in like manner fake advantage of the estoppel.

21 C. J., page 1107.

Osborn & Witty, of Greenwood, for appellees.

When one procures the making of a loan, especially one who participates in and is benefited by the proceeds of the loan he is forever estopped to deny the title acquired by the lien securing such loan, or the title acquired under a foreclosure of such lien.

41 C. J. 595; 41 C. J., page 596; 21 C. J. 1206.

Mere inadequacy of price alone, sufficient to shock the conscience, will justify the court in setting aside a deed.

Hesdorffer et al. v. Welsh, 90 So. 3; Bratton et al. v. Graham, 111 So. 353, 146 Miss. 246; Foster v. Campbell, 113 So. 550, 145 Miss. 502; Weyburn v. Watkins, 44 So. 145, 35 So. 415.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, P. J.

H. E Wilkinson filed a bill in the chancery ...