Williams v. Shackleford

• Decision Date: 04 March 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 222,97 Mo. 322
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. SHACKLEFORD et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 222

97 Mo. 322

WILLIAMS et al. v. SHACKLEFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 4, 1889.

CONVICTS — CONVEYANCES.

Under Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 1667, providing that a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term less than life suspends all civil rights, a conveyance of land by a convict sentenced for a term of years is void, and passes no title.

Appeal from circuit court, Pettis county; JOHN P. STROTHER, Judge.

L. L. Bridges and E. J. Smith, for appellants. W. W. S. Snoddy, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

This is an action in ejectment, to recover possession of a 40-acre tract of land in Pettis county. The case was tried by the court without a jury. The plaintiffs obtained judgment in the circuit court, and the defendants appealed.

Plaintiffs claim title under a mortgage deed, with power of sale, executed by John L. Williams to A. W. Anthony, dated October 15, 1879, to secure the payment of a note for $300 to said Anthony, executed by the said Williams, and the plaintiffs as his sureties; and a deed from said Anthony to them in pursuance of sale made by him as such mortgagee on the 1st of January, 1880. On the 5th of June, 1879, the said Williams was convicted in the circuit court of Morgan county of a felony, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of years. The mortgage deed was executed by Williams at the instance of the plaintiffs, after he was sentenced, and while he was in the penitentiary, serving out his term of imprisonment, and while a suit was pending in the circuit court of Pettis county, instituted by his wife, for a divorce from him, on the ground of his conviction and sentence for felony aforesaid; in the petition in which divorce suit she set up that the title to the premises in controversy was in the name of her said husband, but that the property came to him by reason of his marriage with her, and was wholly paid for by money which she inherited from her father's estate, and praying that the same might be vested in her. At the May term, 1880, of said court a divorce a vinculo was granted Mrs. Williams, the court finding that the land in controversy came to said defendant, her husband, by reason of his marriage with her, and that the same was wholly paid for by money inherited from her father's estate, and decreeing that said land "be divested out of defendant, and vested in plaintiff herein." Afterwards, in the year 1882, the defendant Shackleford and Mrs. Williams intermarried, of which marriage a child was born, who is still living. Before the institution of this suit Shackleford's wife died, and he is in possession of the premises by his tenant, his co-defendant, as tenant by the curtesy of his deceased wife's real estate.

"A sentence of imprisonment in the...