Bank of Missouri v. White
| Decision Date | 31 October 1856 |
| Citation | 23 Mo. 342 |
| Parties | BANK OF MISSOURI et al., Respondents, v. WHITE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. There is no equity in favor of creditors of an intestate's estate, or of the heirs of such intestate, to set aside and annul a sale and conveyance of land by an administrator for the payment of debts, where such sale and conveyance are absolutely void; if the sale be void, creditors may proceed in the probate or county court for a resale, and the heirs may have their action for the possession.
2. Where a creditor of an intestate's estate seeks to set aside a sale and conveyance made by the administrator for the payment of debts, on the ground of fraud, the administrator not being a party to the suit; held, it not appearing that the suing creditor is the only creditor of the estate, that a decree directing the payment of such creditor out of the proceeds of a resale, is erroneous.
Appeal from Lewis Circuit Court.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Pratt, Glover & Richardson and H. M. Jones, for appellants.
Driden and Green, for respondents.
This was a petition to set aside a sale and conveyance of real estate made by an administrator for the payment of debts under the decree of a probate court. A single creditor and the widow and heir of the intestate are the plaintiffs, and the purchasers of the land are the defendants. The petition charges that the sale was never approved by the probate court, as required by law; and that the purchasers acquired the land, at a great sacrifice to the owners, by fraudulent and other improper conduct at the bidding; and that the administrator (who is not a party to this proceeding) has made his final settlement, leaving the debt of one of the plaintiffs, who is the only remaining creditor of the estate, unpaid. Upon a trial by the court, it is found that the sale was never approved by the court; that the defendants effected the purchase by the alleged misconduct; and that one of the plaintiffs is a creditor of the estate, but whether the only creditor or not is not found. Upon these facts, the court declared that the sale was void for want of the judicial confirmation, and also on account of the alleged fraudulent conduct of the purchasers, and thereupon decreed a resale of the land, ordering the proceeds to be applied, first, to refund the purchase money, then to pay the creditor plaintiff his debt, and the residue to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. De France
...sale of the sixteen acres to Mrs. Murphy was void, for reasons not necessary to be stated. Acting upon the suggestions made in Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342, they asked, eventually procured, the resale on the third petition of the public administrator. At the time of procuring this order, De Fr......
-
Barnum v. Barnum
...equitable relief. 2 Woerner on Administration, 1077, secs. 482 and 484; Jones v. Carter, 56 Mo. 403; Speck v. Wohlein, 22 Mo. 310; Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342; Dickerson Campbell, 32 Mo. 544; Caldwell v. Lockridge, 9 Mo. 358; Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 168. Macfarlane, J. Barclay, J., is ab......
-
Ferguson v. Carson
...the relief sought.-- Wernecke v. Kenyon, 66 Mo. 283-285; Titterington v. Hooker, 58 Mo. 596-598; Pearce v. Calhoun, 59 Mo. 274; Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342; Public Works v. College, 17 Wall. 530. There was no equity in the bill.-- Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342; Metcalf v. Smith's Heirs, 40 Mo. 57......
-
Knowlton v. Smith
...be questioned in a purely collateral proceeding. The cases of Valle v. Fleming, 19 Mo., 454; Speck v. Wohlein, 22 Mo. 310, and Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342, furnish no authority for this case. Whittelsey, for respondent. I. The deed of the administrator did not recite that he had made report o......