Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., No. 22093.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtReeves
Citation236 S.W. 294,291 Mo. 239
Decision Date31 December 1921
Docket NumberNo. 22093.
PartiesWOOLRIDGE et al. v. LA CROSSE LUMBER CO.
236 S.W. 294
291 Mo. 239
WOOLRIDGE et al.
v.
LA CROSSE LUMBER CO.
No. 22093.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
December 31, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; E. S. Gantt, Judge.

[236 S.W. 295]

Action by J. Walker Woolridge and others against the La Crosse Lumber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Action to ascertain and determine interest in real estate under the provisions of section 1970, R. S. 1919. The real estate involved is described as:

"All of 44 feet off of the southeast side of lot one of block four, of Ellis addition to the city of Wellsville, formerly town of Wellsville, fronting on Sturgeon street 44 feet and running back to the alley in said block 120 feet, and all being in Montgomery county, Missouri."

Pleadings.

The petition alleges that one Mary Mottz was the owner of said property on November 20, 1913, and that through mesne and intermediate conveyances, all fully described in the petition, appellants (plaintiffs below) acquired title to said property, and asserted that the respondent (defendant below) claimed some right, title, and interest to said real estate. Appellants prayed for an ascertainment and determination of the interests of all parties to said real estate.

Respondent's answer joined appellants in the allegation that Mary Mottz was the owner of the said property prior to November 20, 1913, and then alleged that on that day she conveyed said property to J. H. Dungan and Maggie A. Dungan, as also alleged in appellants' petition. The answer then alleged that J. H. Dungan and Maggie A. Dungan on the same day they received a deed from Mary Mottz executed and delivered their certain promissory note in the sum of $3,500, payable to the order of Mary Mottz, and to secure same executed and delivered their deed of trust on said property, and that all the mesne and intermediate Conveyances set up in appellants' petition were made subject to the said deed of trust, and that, default having been made in the payment of said note for $3,500, under the provisions of said deed of trust, the property was sold, and at said sale the respondent became purchaser. Appellants' reply denied knowledge of the execution and delivery of the deed of trust from J. H. Dungan and wife, but said that if executed and delivered, as alleged by respondent, such deed of trust was a nullity, void at law, and of no legal force and effect, further alleging that said deed of trust was improperly recorded, was not entitled to record, and was not notice to appellants and those under whom they claimed title to the real estate; and, further replying, appellants denied that the conveyances, under which they claim, had been made subject to the deed of trust set up in respondent's answer, and they affirmed that they had acquired title to said real estate without notice of the deed of trust pleaded by respondent.

The Facts.

The testimony supported the allegations of the pleadings on both sides so far as the execution and delivery of the instruments pleaded were concerned. It appeared that on November 20, 1913, Mary Mottz conveyed to J. H. Dungan and wife by general warranty deed, and on the same day Dungan and wife executed their deed of trust on said property to secure the payment of a note for $3,500; that thereafter, to wit, on November 26, 1913, Dungan and wife conveyed by general warranty deed to George D. Austin, and that Austin and wife on March 27, 1914, by general warranty deed conveyed to Henry Roppel, and that the deed from Austin to Roppel contained the following:

"That said premises are free and clear of any incumbrances done or suffered by grantors or those under whom they claim, except the following: A deed of trust for $3,500, held by Mary Mottz." (The italics are ours.)

Thereafter, to wit, on August 21, 1916, by general warranty deed, Roppel and wife conveyed to William H. Hobbs; said deed of conveyance containing the following:

"This property is sold subject to a deed of trust for $3,500 to Mrs. Mary Mottz, of Wellsville, Missouri, which the second party fully assumes and agrees to pay, together with all accumulation of interest on same from the date of this deed." (The italics are ours.)

Thereafter on April 7, 1917, Hobbs and wife executed their deed of trust on said property to secure appellant Charles E. Wright on their note to him in the sum of $800. This deed of trust contained the following recital:

"This deed of trust is made subject to a prior deed of trust in the sum of $3,500 to Mrs. Mary Maltz of Wellsville, Missouri."

Subsequently, to wit, on January 16, 1918, Hobbs and wife gave to appellant Woolridge a quitclaim deed, but, said deed being defective and irregular, another was executed between the same parties on March 22, 1919. The property was sold under the deed of trust given by Dungan and wife to Mrs. Mottz, and on February 9, 1918, the sheriff of Montgomery county, as sheriff and trustee, executed and delivered a deed to respondent, conveying said property to it. At the opening of the trial, the record recites as follows:

"Before announcing ready for trial it was agreed by and between counsel for plaintiffs and defendant, as an admitted fact in open court, that J. H. Dungan and Maggie A. Dungan actually signed the deed of trust to Mrs. Mary Mottz, being the deed of trust in issue in this case; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...App. 275; Orchard v. National Exchange Bank, 121 Mo. 239; Nichols v. Dodson Lead Co., 83 Mo. App. 584; Woolridge v. LaCrosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239; Germer Mfg. Co. v. Combs, 287 Mo. 275; Stewart v. Omaha L. & T. Co., 283 Mo. 364; Scott v. Lusherman, 273 Mo. 363; Zasenowich v. American Mfg......
  • Holland v. Bogardus-Hill Drug Co., No. 26397.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1926
    ...52, and cases cited; State v. Roderman, 297 Mo. loc. cit. 152, 248 S. W. 964; Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. loc. cit. 247, 236 S. W. 294, 19 A. L. R. 1068; State v. McNeal (Mo. Sup.) 237 S. W. 738; Wells v. Wells, 279 Mo. loc. cit. 69, 213 S. W. We then have this situation, tha......
  • Murphy v. Butler County, No. 38916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 5, 1944
    ...to his own deed but that made only the acknowledgment void and left the deed good between the parties. [Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239, 236 S.W. 294, 19 A.L.R. 1068; Williams v. Moniteau National Bank, 72 Mo. 292.] If the foreclosure was not void and divested plaintiff of he......
  • County Sa v. Bank Of, (No. 581.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 9, 1926
    ...C. 450, 115 S. E. 166; Ferebee v. Sawyer, 167 N. C. 199, 83 S. E. 17, L. R. A. 1915B, 640. See note to Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239, 236 S. W. 294, 19 A. L. R. 1068. The defect relied upon by plaintiff does not appear upon the record; it is not found or admitted as a fact ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...App. 275; Orchard v. National Exchange Bank, 121 Mo. 239; Nichols v. Dodson Lead Co., 83 Mo. App. 584; Woolridge v. LaCrosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239; Germer Mfg. Co. v. Combs, 287 Mo. 275; Stewart v. Omaha L. & T. Co., 283 Mo. 364; Scott v. Lusherman, 273 Mo. 363; Zasenowich v. American Mfg......
  • Holland v. Bogardus-Hill Drug Co., No. 26397.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1926
    ...52, and cases cited; State v. Roderman, 297 Mo. loc. cit. 152, 248 S. W. 964; Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. loc. cit. 247, 236 S. W. 294, 19 A. L. R. 1068; State v. McNeal (Mo. Sup.) 237 S. W. 738; Wells v. Wells, 279 Mo. loc. cit. 69, 213 S. W. We then have this situation, tha......
  • Murphy v. Butler County, No. 38916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 5, 1944
    ...to his own deed but that made only the acknowledgment void and left the deed good between the parties. [Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239, 236 S.W. 294, 19 A.L.R. 1068; Williams v. Moniteau National Bank, 72 Mo. 292.] If the foreclosure was not void and divested plaintiff of he......
  • County Sa v. Bank Of, (No. 581.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 9, 1926
    ...C. 450, 115 S. E. 166; Ferebee v. Sawyer, 167 N. C. 199, 83 S. E. 17, L. R. A. 1915B, 640. See note to Woolridge v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 291 Mo. 239, 236 S. W. 294, 19 A. L. R. 1068. The defect relied upon by plaintiff does not appear upon the record; it is not found or admitted as a fact ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT