Stoffel v. Schroeder

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Parties: JOSEPHENA STOFFEL, et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM SCHROEDER, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 Mo. 147

JOSEPHENA STOFFEL, et al., Appellants,

v.WILLIAM SCHROEDER, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1876.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

John P. Hudgins, for Appellants, cited Worten vs. Henkle, 20 Mo., 290; Stewart vs. Nelson, 25 Mo., 309; Stine vs. Wilkinson, 10 Mo., 75; Stewart vs. Severance, 43 Mo., 322.T. H. Wilson, for Respondents, cited Chesley vs. Chesley, 49 Mo., 540; Forrester vs. Scoville, 51 Mo., 268; Johnson vs. Quarles, 46 Mo., 423; Ellis vs. Pacific R. R., 51 Mo., 200; Sto. Eq., §§ 762, 763, 764, 770; Judge vs. Booge, 47 Mo., 544; Carter vs. Abshire, 48 Mo., 300; Brooks vs. Duckworth 49 Mo., 43.

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an equitable proceeding whereby it is sought to set aside a sale, under a deed of trust, of certain real estate situate in the city of St. Louis, and also, to declare void a deed subsequently made by the defendant, Schroeder, the purchaser at such sale, to the defendant, Westerheide, and to permit the plaintiff to redeem. The basis of the complaint was: 1st, that Schroeder, who was the beneficiary in the deed of trust, agreed to buy in the land and permit its redemption, and, 2d, that by means of this agreement, he had bought in the land at about half of what it was worth, and that in consequence of the agreement the sale took place at an unusual hour, and that Westerheide afterwards, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, received a deed from Schroeder, and this deed was made without any money being paid, and in order to cover up the fraud practiced at the sale under the deed of trust. The answers of the defendants denied all the chief allegations of the petition. The plaintiffs, with the exceptions of Stoffel and McGuire, are the minor heirs of Mrs. Schmitz, and the owners of the equity of redemption in the property in controversy, which equity of redemption was acquired by and for them, by means of a sale which took place under a second deed of trust, which incumbrance as well as the first deed under which Schroeder bought, were placed on the premises in question by Jacob Schmitz, the father of Mrs. Stoffel and those of the plaintiffs, who are minors. The sale and conveyance under the second deed of trust, took place prior to that under the first deed; the former deed being made to a creditor other than Schroeder, and for a different debt Upon hearing the evidence, it was held insufficient to sustain the allegations of the petition, and the same was dismissed. If this action of the trial court was based on the first ground mentioned, it was clearly right, and this for two reasons; first, that the testimony offered by plaintiffs was too vague and inconclusive, especially when explicitly denied by Schroeder, to establish any such agreement; second, it does not appear that Schmitz, the father, made the alleged agreement for the benefit of the plaintiffs.

But the dismissal of the petition is not so satisfactory, when considered with reference to the other grounds which it contains. The testimony shows that the sale occurred at 11 o'clock, when the usual time was an hour later, that this result was attained by Schroeder, the beneficiary, and purchaser at that sale, and that the property which was worth at least $8,500, was sold for $5,000. There were but two bidders at this sale, the one already mentioned, and Schmitz, the debtor, who bid, it seems under the advice of the...