Williams v. Baker

• Decision Date: 17 March 1903
• Citation: 100 Mo. App. 284,73 S.W. 339
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. BAKER et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 339

100 Mo. App. 284

WILLIAMS v. BAKER et al.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 17, 1903.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER—VENDOR'S LIEN— ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT—RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE —NOTES—TRANSFER AFTER MATURITY—DEFENSES AVAILABLE—ESTOPPEL—BREACH OF WARRANTY.

1. A purchaser of a note given for a part of the price of land acquires the right to enforce the vendor's lien against the land for the balance of the price thereby secured, by suit in his own name.

2. A purchaser of a note given for part of the price of land, after its maturity took the same subject to every defense to which it was subject in the hands of the payee.

3. Where, in an action by an assignee of a note given for a part of the price of land, there was no evidence that defendant, who was a subsequent purchaser of the land, had any knowledge that the maker of the note and an intermediate purchaser of the land had written letters to the payee acknowledging that the note was justly due, and promising to pay the same as soon as they would raise the money, defendant was not estopped by such letters from setting up a breach of warranty of title as a defense to the note.

4. In a suit to enforce a vendor's lien for a balance of the price of land sold, against a subsequent purchaser of the land, defendant was entitled to plead as a defense a breach of the vendor's warranty of title, and was not bound to sue at law to recover damages therefor.

Goode. J., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Richard Williams against J. K. Baker and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

On March 2, 1897, E. Still and N. Gibson were the joint owners of the east half of the southwest quarter of section 21, township 17 north, of range 11 east, situated in Pemiscot county, Mo. On said date E. Still, representing himself as the sole owner of said land, sold the same to J. K. Baker, a resident of the state of Tennessee, for $240, and executed and delivered to him a warranty deed therefor. Baker paid $140 of the purchase price, and gave Still his promissory note for the balance, $100, due 12 months after date, which fact was recited in the deed. On February 7, 1897, J. K. Baker conveyed the land by warranty deed to his son, D. E. Baker. On February 14, 1899, D. E. Baker conveyed the land by warranty deed to his mother, P. E. Baker. All of these deeds were duly recorded. After the note for the balance of the purchase price became due, J. K. Baker and D. E. Baker wrote letters to Still promising to pay the note. Still exhibited the note and these letters to the plaintiff, and induced him to purchase it. After acquiring the note, plaintiff commenced this suit in the Pemiscot circuit court against the three Bakers to enforce his vendor's lien against the land for the balance of the purchase money evidenced by the note. J. K. Baker died before notice of the suit could be served upon him, and the suit as to him was dismissed, and was also dismissed as to D. E. Baker on his motion. The answer of the remaining defendant, P. E. Baker, alleged a breach of the covenant of warranty contained in the Still deed, and by reason thereof alleged a failure of the consideration of the note.

The court refused the following instructions asked by plaintiff:

"(1) The court declares the law to be that in this cause, if the court sitting as a jury shall find that J. K. Baker bought the land in controversy from E. Still, and that the deed of conveyance recited upon its face that a note of $100 had been given for the balance of the purchase price of said land, and that said deed of conveyance had been recorded in the recorder's office in Pemiscot county, Mo., prior to the time that the defendant P. E. Baker purchased said land, the law will presume that said P. E. Baker had notice of the lien of said E. Still upon said land for the unpaid balance of the purchase price thereof.

"(2) If the court, sitting as a jury, shall find that said E. Still transferred the note given as aforesaid for the balance of purchase price in said land, for value, to plaintiff, Richard Williams, and that said note has not been paid, then the finding of the court will be for the plaintiff to the extent of the amount due now on said note.

"(3) The court declares the law to be that, even though he may find that the consideration of the note given by J. K. Baker to E. Still has partly failed, yet such fact is no defense to the defendant P. E. Baker."

No other instructions were asked or given, and the court, to whom the issues were by agreement of parties submitted, found for defendant, and rendered judgment in her favor, from which plaintiff appealed.

J. P. Tribble, for appellant. Brewer & Collins, for respondents.

BLAND, P. J. (after stating the facts).

1...