Arnote v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 30 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 14497.,14497. |
| Citation | 250 S.W. 633 |
| Parties | ARNOTE v. ROGERS et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; Ralph Hughes, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by J. C. Arnote against Ben Rogers and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Davis & Ashby, of Chillicothe, and A. M. Clark, of Richmond, for appellants.
Paul D. Kitt, of Chillicothe, for respondent.
This is a suit on a promissory note in the sum of $2,300, dated April 24, 1920, payable October 15, 1920, and executed by defendants to the plaintiff. The case was tried before" the court without the aid of a jury. The court rendered judgment against the defendants, and they have appealed.
The facts show that there was pending in the circuit court of Caldwell county the partition suit of Ralph Hicks v. Thomas Hicks et al., which had for its purpose the selling of 290 acres of land in said county and a house and lot in the town of Breckenridge, ail owned by the Hicks heirs. On the 9th day of March, said court ordered the land and town property partitioned and sold by the sheriff, who is the plaintiff herein. The sheriff thereupon sold the land to one Rozzelle, but soon thereafter said sale was, by order of the court made in vacation on agreement of the parties, set aside. This agreement recited that in consideration of the sale being set aside defendant Tray Rogers would bid at another sale $45,000 for the property; that if he became the successful bidder he would complete the purchase; that he should deposit the sum of $1.500 as evidence of his good faith and to secure the carrying out of the agreement; that if he failed to bid $45,000 and the property at the sale brought less than that sum, or if he was the successful bidder at that sum and did not complete the purchase, then the sum deposited should be forfeited to the parties to the suit; that at said resale he should be credited the amount of his deposit on his bid if the property was sold to him, and if it was sold to some one else for more than $45,000, then the deposit was to be returned to him. The court thereupon made an order in vacation embodying therein said agreement and appointing plaintiff, the sheriff, receiver of all the property described in the petition, with directions to rent all of said property for cash, the dwelling house to be rented from month to month but all of the other lands for a term expiring March 1, 1921, the rent notes to be due October 15, 1920.
Plaintiff on the 24th day of April, 1920, rented the 290 acres of land by written lease to defendant Ben Rogers, who is a son of defendant Tray Rogers, for a term of one year, beginning the 24th day of April, 1920, and ending the 1st day of March, 1921. The consideration was $2,300, payable on the 15th day of October, 1920. A note for the rent, the note sued upon, was executed with Ben Rogers as principal and defendant Tray Rogers as surety. At the June term of the circuit court the land was again sold by plaintiff, the sheriff. Before this sale all the parties in the suit assembled in the sheriff's office, who, with the sheriff and defendant Tray Rogers, were present. It was announced at this meeting that the sale of the land, which was to take place immediately, was to be made subject to the lease expiring March 1, 1921; that the purchaser should pay the purchase price when the sale was approved, but was not to get possession until the expiration of the lease; that the lease money was to be paid to the parties to the partition suit. The meeting in the sheriff's office was adjourned to the front of the courthouse, where the sheriff announced the sale, and in doing so stated in the presence and hearing of all the parties, including defendant Tray Rogers, that the sale would be made subject to the lease on the farm, etc.; the announcement being the same as the announcement made to the parties in the sheriff's office. No objection at any time was made. The property was then put up for sale in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Grand Lodge of United Brothers of Friendship and Sisters of Mysterious Ten v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
- Grand Lodge v. Bonding & Ins. Co.
-
Timothy v. Hicks
...v. Johnson et al., 51 Mo.App. 157; Hayden v. Burkemper, 40 Mo.App. 346, 101 Mo. 644; Hayward v. Poindexter, 229 S.W. 256; Arnote v. Rodgers et al., 250 S.W. 633. (3) (a) The decree in partition rendered by the Circuit of Scotland County was and is conclusive as to every right, title or inte......
-
Timothy et al. v. Hicks
...v. Johnson et al., 51 Mo. App. 157; Hayden v. Burkemper, 40 Mo. App. 346, 101 Mo. 644; Hayward v. Poindexter, 229 S.W. 256; Arnote v. Rodgers et al., 250 S.W. 633. (3) (a) The decree in partition rendered by the Circuit Court of Scotland County was and is conclusive as to every right, title......