97 Mo. 322 | Mo. | 1888
This is an action in ejectment to recover possession of a forty-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.
“A sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary
The effect of these provisions is to preserve the inheritance of a convicted felon from forfeiture through corruption of blood; but to deprive him of the power of alienating or incumbering his property during the term of his sentence of imprisonment. The state makes provision for his personal necessities, and the law provides, if he be a convict for life, for the administration and disposal of his estate the same “as if he were naturally dead.” R. S. sec. 6543. And, if he be a convict for a term of years, for the management and administration sub modo, of his estate upon the application of his relatives or creditors, or his wife’s relatives, by a trustee to be appointed by the circuit court. R. S. sec. 6544. In such trustee, when duly qualified as the law directs, “ all the estate, property rights in action and effects of such imprisoned convict shall be vested in trust for the benefit of creditors and others interested therein.” Sec. 6548. And who may, by order of the court appointing him, at any time sell, lease or mortgage the real estate “whenever the same shall be necessary for the payment of debts, or the support and maintenance of the family or the education of the children of such convict.” Sec. 6550. And “whenever any such imprisoned convict shall be lawfully discharged- from his imprisonment the trustees so appointed shall deliver up to him all his estate real and personal," etc. Sec. 6565.
The right of exclusive individual dominion over property is a civil right, the creature of organized
It follows that Williams had no power to execute the deed to Anthony while a convict in the penitentiary serving his term for a felony. It was absolutely void, and conferred no title on Anthony and he conveyed none to the plaintiffs by his deed. The court erred in refusing the second declaration of' law asked for the defendants, the giving of which would have so held and resulted in a finding and judgment for the defendants. And for this error the judgment is reversed. This ruling renders a consideration of the defendants’ title unnecessary.