Goode v. Crow
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 212 |
| Parties | SARAH C. GOODE, et. al., Defendant in Error, v. JOHN T. CROW, et. al., Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to the Franklin Circuit Court.
Seay, for Appellant, cited in argument Stewart vs. Severance, 43 Mo., 322; 1 Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 197, 199, 200 a;3 Mo., 477; Story's Eq., § 197; 26 Mo., 398, 415; Lefevre vs. Laraway, 22 Barb., 171, 172.
Henry Flannagan, for Defendant in Error, cited Wooton vs. Hinkle, 20 Mo., 290; Blight's heirs vs. Tobin, 7 T. B. Monroe, 612; Mills vs. Rogers, 2 Little's (Ky.,) 217; Phipps vs. Stickney, 3 Met., (Mass.,) 384; Doolin vs. Marl, 6 Johnson's, 194.
This was a partition case in which a sale was made of the lands, and a motion filed by plaintiff to set aside the sale was resisted by the purchasers. The court upon the trial of the motion, set aside the sale, and the purchasers have brought the proceedings on the motion here by writ of error.
The record proper has not been brought up, but only the proceedings on the motion are before us. It appears from these proceedings, that the plaintiffs allege in their motion to set aside the sale, that many persons were prevented from attending the sale by reason of rumors in the country, that the sale would not take place on the day that it had been set for, but on the next day. And the motion charges the purchasers with putting these rumors in circulation, so as to purchase the lands at a reduced price; that bidders were kept away by these rumors, and that the purchasers obtained the lands at ten times less than their value.
The motion also charges that several parties to the partition were infants, and were not properly before the court. That one of the defendants owning an interest in the land, was not properly notified, so as to be bound by the judgment. The court heard the motion on affidavit. The purchasers objected to the affidavits offered by plaintiffs, upon the alleged ground that they were taken by surprise by these affidavits not having been filed; but no motion was made when they were offered to postpone the case to another day in term or to the next term, and the purchasers then produced affidavits on their part.
The affidavits read by the plaintiffs tended to show the state of facts alleged in the motion in regard to the sale having been put off, etc., and the affidavits on the part of the purchasers conduced to show that they had not given circulation to the alleged rumors, but had tried to correct them.
There is no statute or other law governing the trials of such motions. They are summary proceedings, and the Circuit Court must be allowed to exercise a sound discretion in regard to the sort of proofs to be adduced upon the trial. Some of these courts have adopted the practice of allowing affidavits to be read, and we see no good reason to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson
...court was proper as to matters omitted. State v. Tucker, 84 Mo. 23; Birney v. Sharp, 78 Mo. 73; Greenbaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474; Goode v. Crow, 51 Mo. 212; State v. Sullivan, 51 Mo. 522. (4) There is no merit in the objection that defendants were not afforded an opportunity to challenge t......
-
Walter v. Scofield
...not demonstrate the existence of fraud in all its hideous reality. Davis v. McCann, 143 Mo. 172; Merritt v. Poulter, 96 Mo. 237; Goode v. Crow, 51 Mo. 212; Byers v. supra; Griffith v. Judge, 49 Mo. 536; Wagner v. Phillips, 51 Mo. 117; Rogers v. Lee, 9 F. 721; Lane v. Black, 21 W.Va. 617; Ro......
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
... ... actions of the court below. State v. Burns, 85 Mo ... 47; Porth v. Gilbert, 85 Mo. 125; Goode v ... Crow, 51 Mo. 212; State v. Co. Court, 51 Mo ... 522; Acock v. Stewart, 57 Mo. 170; Stephens v ... City of Macon, 83 Mo. 345; ... ...
-
Davidson v. I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Co.
...had intervened, ought not to be interfered with, unless there was manifest abuse of such discretion. Pomeroy v. Allen, 60 Mo. 530; Goode v. Crow, 51 Mo. 212; Mitchell Jones, 50 Mo. 438; Rannels v. Washington U., 96 Mo. 226; Anderson v. Ragan, 105 Mo. 406; Wauchope v. McCormack, 158 Mo. 666.......