Case Name: CYNTHIA G. HECTOR et al., Appellants, v. J. T. WARREN and R. L. WARREN
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1910-02-02
Citations: 225 Mo. 255
Docket Number: 
Parties: CYNTHIA G. HECTOR et al., Appellants, v. J. T. WARREN and R. L. WARREN.
Judges: All concur except Vallicmt, G. J., who dissents in an opinion filed.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 255–271

Head Matter:
CYNTHIA G. HECTOR et al., Appellants, v. J. T. WARREN and R. L. WARREN.
In Banc,
February 2, 1910.
1. PARTITION: Sale not Approved: Acceptance of Proceeds: Estoppel: Ratification. The coparceners who accepted the proceeds of a sale in partition not approved by the court, under such circumstances that they must be held to have known that the proceeds arose from the sale of their lands, thereby elected to affirm the sale and are estopped to question its validity.
Held, by VALLIANT, C. J., dissenting:
First, that estoppel and ratification stand on . different grounds, although they have some essentials in common, among which is the requirement that the party sought to be charged with ratification acted with full knowledge. Estoppel proceeds upon the idea that the party’s conduct has been such as to induce his adversary to take certain action on the faith of it and it would work injury to his adversary if the party were now allowed to show that the facts on which his adversary was thus induced to rely were not true: if the party was in a position where he coulu have known or did know that his act might mislead his adversary to his disadvantage, then it was his duty to inquire before acting, and if he acted without making the inquiry and thereby misled his adversary he might be estop-ped, but that would not be a ratification. Ratification means that the party with his eyes open adopts and gives sanction to an act done in his name which, without his. sanction, would not be binding upon him, and it may be implied from circumstances, as, for example, when he, with full knowledge of a sale in partition and that it was not binding upon him, chooses to adopt the unauthorized act and accepts its proceeds; but if he does not know these, facts his act is not a ratification.
Second. One of the heirs sold his interest in the land, and his grantee brought suit in partition by order of publication against the other non-resident owners who had also mortgaged the land to secure the debt of that heir, and at the sheriff’s sale the mortgagee was the purchaser, and is the defendant in this suit to have that sale set aside on the ground that the report of sale was never approved. Held, that, the non-resident owners did not ratify the sale by accepting from the sheriff the proceeds of the sale unless they had actual knowledge that there was a partition suit and sale, and that the lands in suit were those sold, nor if they actually believed the remittances grew out of a foreclosure of the mortgage; and the evi dence failing to stow they had such knowledge, hut showing defendant has derived more from the use of the lands than the improvements cost, they should he permitted to recover upon a return of the money received by them.
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Aeeirmed.
S-hepard & Shepard and McKay ’& Corbett fo,r appellants.
(1) The doctrine of estoppel does not apply in this case, for the reason that the plaintiffs, as they received the money, had no knowledge of the fact that the money they received was for the sale of the land in question. There is no such thing known to the law as a party being estopped from his actions in a matter wherein he has not full knowledge of the facts in connection therewith. Scrutchfield’ v. Sauter, 119 Mo. 623; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 272; Burke v. Adams, 88 Mo. 513; Freeland v. Williamson, 220' Mo. 217. There can be no estoppel by ratification unless the party sought to be estopped have full knowledge of the matters which he is said to have ratified. Smith v. Jefferson Bank, 120 Mo. App. 527; St. Louis G-unning Advt. v. Wannamaker, 115 Mo. App. 270’; Phillips v. Butler Co., 187 Mo. 698; Belaud v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., 157 Mo. 593; Garesche v. Levering Inv. Co., 146’Mo. 436; Hartmann v. Hornsby, 142 Mo. 368. (2) The sale made by the sheriff of the land in question in partition proceedings was not approved by the Pemiscot Circuit Court; therefore, the deed made by the sheriff for the lands in question was without authority and absolutely void, and the court should have so held. Clark v. Sires, 124 Mo. 12.
Ward & Collins for respondents.
With, all the facts, circumstances, receipts, letters, checks, etc., the court was well warranted in holding that the appellants had knowledge sufficient to hind them. They are estopped by ratification, because they did have full knowledge of the matters which they are said to have ratified. Pentz v. Kuester, 41 Mo. 447; Pockman v. Meatt, 49 Mo. 345. “A party in interest in a partition suit who receives the proceeds of his share of the land sold in such proceedings will be estop-ped to impeach its validity, though such partition proceedings were void for error therein.” Fischer v. Siekman, 125 Mo. 165; Pockman v. Meatt, 49 Mo. 345; Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258; State ex rel. v. Moore, 18 Mo. App. 406; MeClanahan v. West, 100 Mo. 309. The acquiescence of the adverse claimants is entitled to great weight against him. Green et al. v. Yarnall, 6 Mo. 326. The heirs or devisees who share in the proceeds of a sale by an administrator and receipt him for their shares thus obtained are estopped from asserting title thereto. Medis v. Kenny, 176 Mo. 200; Cadematori v. Gauger, 160 Mo. 352. So also land sold under execution. Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 19; Harts-man v. Hornsby, 142 Mo. 376. Appellants were possessed of such facts as to put them upon inquiry concerning the sale of this land and their ignorance (if they were ignorant) was the result of gross negligence or culpable negligence and they cannot be excused thereby. 11 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 433.

Opinion:
LAMM, J.
This case is twin to Hector et al. v. Mann, ante, p. 228, handed down at this delivery. Plaintiffs here were plaintiffs there. There the Mann brothers bought 185 acres of land at a partition sale in case pending in the Pemiscot Circuit Court entitled Riley v. Hector et al. Here the Warrens at the same sale bought 164.85 acres, viz.: lots 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in section 19, township 20, range 12, in Pemiscot county, Missouri, on a bid of $110, and received a sheriff's deed; paying all. the land was worth. This land was not affected by the deed of trust given the Manns, mentioned in the Mann case. Such question is, therefore, out of this case. Presently, after their purchase the Warrens went into possession, reclaimed some of the land from swamp and marsh, fenced it and it is now worth many times more than when knocked down by the sheriff at public vendue.
Barring said mortgage, the pleadings and facts in this case differ in no essential particular from those in the Mann case. The court below found for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The errors assigned here are the same errors assigned in the Mann case. In fact, the two cases were heard together, nisi, and the evidence in the Mann case was read into the record in this. Hence, that case should be read with this.
On the Mann record we held that plaintiffs, by accepting the proceeds of the sale in partition and retaining the same under such circumstances that they must be held to know that those proceeds arose from a partition sale, thereby elected to affirm the sale and were estopped to question it. Moreover, it was ruled that no reversible error was committed. Such rulings dispose of this case and there is no use to reformulate questions there under exposition or restate conclusions so freshly and fully resolved and ruled.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
All concur except Vallicmt, G. J., who dissents in an opinion filed.