Wirtz v. Gordon
Decision Date | 13 November 1939 |
Docket Number | 33433. |
Citation | 187 Miss. 866,192 So. 29 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | WIRTZ et al. v. GORDON et al. |
.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Sunflower County; J. L. Williams Chancellor.
On suggestion of error.
For former opinion, see 184 So. 798.
Everett & Everett, of Indianola, W. W. Venable, of Clarksdale, and Chas. H. Watson, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Moody & Davis and Elbert Johnson, all of Indianola, for appellees.
On suggestion of error, the former opinion herein, as rendered by Division B and reported in 184 So. 798, was withdrawn, the judgment thereon set aside, and the cause remanded to the docket and argued before Division A. Thereafter the case was considered by the Court in banc, and with the result that the said former opinion and judgment are reinstated and adopted by the Court in banc as the decision and judgment of the Court. Consequently, the decree of the court below is reversed, and decree rendered here for the appellants.
Reversed and decree here for the appellants.
I am wholly unable to agree with the opinion in this case; I think the opinion of the majority will create considerable confusion in matters involving estates and mortgages or deeds of trust. The proceedings set up in this case to bar the complainant's right to a partition of the lands cannot in my judgment, be properly entertained for that purpose. The bill filed by Ann. F. Gordon simply sought a partition of lands owned by her father at the time of his death, which were encumbered by a deed of trust executed by her father and mother upon the lands described. Her father had made a will, constituting his wife executor and testamentary guardian of his two minor daughters, one of whom was the complainant, Ann Faison Gordon, who at the time of the said foreclosure proceedings of the deed of trust was a minor, her mother being her guardian and also the executor of the estate of the minor's father; she had qualified as such executor, and probated claims in excess of the $10,000 probated against the estate of E. H. Faison, deceased.
It will be necessary to set forth the terms of the will, and the allegations of the bill filed by the complainant, Ann F. Gordon (née Faison), and pertinent provisions of the deed of trust, and the nature of the proceedings by which the deed of trust was attempted to be foreclosed in chancery. The will reads as follows:
3. Any deed, mortgage, deed of trust or other contract, affecting the title to all or any part of the property, herein devised, executed by my said wife, as executrix, shall be held and deemed as conclusive evidence that this last will and testament vested in her full and complete power to execute the same, and the property affected thereby shall be fully bound to the same extent as if legal title thereto had been vested in her.
The bill filed by the complainant, Ann F. Gordon, set up that E. H. Faison executed the above will and testament on the 9th day of July, 1921, and that he died on the 11th day of November, 1926; that the said will was admitted to probate on the 16th day of November, 1926, and was duly recorded in the will books of Sunflower county; that by said will the lands mentioned in the bill were devised to Gertrude H. Faison, wife of E. H. Faison, now his widow, and to the complainant, Ann F. Gordon, and to Edmund Gertrude Faison, his children; that thereby they were vested with an undivided one-third interest in such lands, as tenants in common; that the complainant was born on the 28th day of September, 1912, and Edmund Gertrude Faison, the defendant, was born on June 26th, 1916; that thereafter, about the 15th day of April, 1933, while the complainant and the defendant, Edmund Gertrude Faison, were still minors, the defendant, Arthur M. Wirtz, together with one, Herman Hachmeister, trustee, filed a bill of complaint in the chancery court, giving the style and number of the bill, and a copy thereof, with the proceedings thereunder, as exhibit to the bill herein filed. It was therein averred that although this complainant and the defendant, Edmund Gertrude Faison, were named as parties to the said bill of complaint, yet the complainant states and charges that she and Edmund Gertrude Faison were not made parties defendant to the said bill of complaint by any process emanating from the chancery court; which court acquired no jurisdiction of the complainant herein, or of Edmund Gertrude Faison, her minor sister; and that all of the proceedings in the said suit attempting to foreclose the mortgage, so far as concerns the complainant and the said Edmund Gertrude Faison, are null and void; and that as to them Wirtz did not acquire title to the lands described in the bill, and it is only by virtue of the proceedings in the suit that he has or claims any interest in the land.
It is then alleged that the complainant is not informed as to whether by virtue of the proceedings had in the said suit to foreclose, Arthur M. Wirtz acquired title to the lands described as against the defendant, Gertrude H. Faison, and asks to have this question adjudicated by this Court.
It is alleged however, that by virtue of the proceedings had in said cause, Wirtz took possession of the lands involved on or about the first day of January, 1934, and since that date has continued in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Stegall
...may not be raised by some third party. Grisham v. Lutric & Chandler, 76 Miss. 444, 24 So. 169; Wirtz v. Gordon, 187 Miss. 866, 184 So. 798, 192 So. 29; Peaslee Gaulbert Paint & Varnish Company v. Lumpkin, 238 Miss. 637, 119 So.2d 772; Powell v. Sowell, Substituted Trustee, Miss., 145 So.2d ......
-
Yeates v. Box
...neither a tenant in common nor in possession, nor had the right to possession. Wirtz et al. v. Gordon et al., 187 Miss. 866, 184 So. 798, 192 So. 29. The bill is also insofar as the trustees are concerned, because the trustees are not interested in the partition. Nugent & McWillie v. Powell......
-
Payne v. Smith
...have been recently reviewed in Hubbard v. Massey, 192 Miss. 95, 4 So.2d 230, 494, and in Wirtz v. Gordon, 187 Miss. 866, 184 So. 798, 192 So. 29.' While it does not appear from Allen v. Alliance Trust Company, supra, as reported, that the purchaser at the void foreclosure sale was in posses......
-
Hubbard v. Massey
...or those claiming under him is to redeem the land from the mortgage indebtedness." Wirtz v. Gordon et al., 187 Miss. 866, 184 So. 798, 802, 192 So. 29. Court in the Wirtz case further said: "This rule, that the mortgagee cannot be deprived of possession by the mortgagor till the debt is pai......