Blodgett v. Perry
Decision Date | 04 March 1889 |
Citation | 10 S.W. 891,97 Mo. 263 |
Parties | Blodgett, Appellant, v. Perry |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Johnson Circuit Court. -- Hon. N. M. Givan, Judge.
The petition in this case, an action of ejectment, was in the usual form. In his answer defendant admitted his possession of the property, but denied all other allegations of the petition. The defendant then as an equitable defense set up the following new matter:
"For further answer to said petition, defendant says that both parties to this action claim title through and under one Amos M. Perry, who was formerly the owner in fee of the real estate in controversy; that heretofore, to-wit, on the twenty-sixth day of July, 1870, the Union Bank of Missouri commenced an action by attachment against said Amos M. Perry in the court of common pleas in and for the county aforesaid that the writ of attachment in said cause was duly levied on the lands in controversy, and notice by publication duly given to said defendant, and at the September term, 1870, of said court a special judgment, in favor of said bank, and against said land as the property of said Amos M. Perry, was duly rendered; that on the twenty-sixth day of November 1870, a special execution was issued upon said judgment and levied upon the real estate in controversy, and after due advertisement, during the December term, 1870, of said court while said court was in session, said real estate was exposed to sale and sold to the highest bidder for cash, in all respects in accordance with the law; that at said sale said bank was a bidder for said land; that at said sale one Wm. D. Shumate, being the highest, best and last bidder, became the purchaser of the real estate in controversy; that the plaintiff herein was the attorney for the Union Bank aforesaid in its action against said Perry from its inception to its termination; that the defendant holds under said Shumate, and has acquired by proper conveyances all the title of said Shumate in said land; that the sheriff who made the said sale thereafter executed a deed in due form to this defendant as the assignee of the rights of said Shumate in said land; that the plaintiff now claims to own said real estate by conveyance from said Union Bank, dated long after said sale to said Shumate; that said plaintiff claims that said bank had purchased said real estate of said Amos M. Perry and was the owner thereof prior to the aforesaid sale to Wm. D. Shumate; that at the sale under the execution aforesaid, said Shumate, relying upon the acts of said bank in attaching, advertising and selling under execution the real estate in controversy, as the property of Amos M. Perry, as a declaration, admission and assertion of said bank that it was not the owner of said real estate and that said Amos Perry was the owner thereof, purchased the same and paid therefor a valuable consideration; and this defendant, his assignee, has received in due form from the sheriff who sold the same a deed conveying said land to him; that said Blodgett purchased of said bank with full knowledge of all the foregoing facts; that said bank was estopped, debarred and precluded from asserting any title to said real estate, acquired from said Amos M. Perry by said bank, prior to said sale to said Wm. D. Shumate."
Defendant offered in evidence the following order made by the Johnson circuit court on October 23, 1885:
Defendant introduced in evidence a deed from J. H. Smith, late sheriff, to the land in controversy, said deed having been made in pursuance of said order of the circuit court.
The defendant read in evidence the deposition of F. M. Cockrell:
The deposition of plaintiff was read in evidence, wherein he stated as follows:
Reversed.
H. S Priest and S. P. Sparks for appellant.
(1) The sheriff's deed of October 20, 1866, conveyed to the Union Bank of Missouri all the title of Amos M. Perry. On its face the deed is a perfect instrument, and no evidence of any sort was offered by defendant to impeach it. The deed contains every recital required by statute. The execution was special and was a lien on the lands without any formal levy, and it does not appear that the sale was made after its return day. Executions may be made returnable at the second as well as at the first term of court succeeding their issue. 1 Wag. Stat sec. 4, p. 602. Again, the execution being special, and being a lien upon the property decribed therein without a formal levy, if for any cause a sale was not made at the first term of court, the execution, and, in case of a levy, the lien of such levy remained in force until the end of the second term, and until a term of court was held at which the real estate might be sold. 1 Wag. Stat. sec. 51, p. 611. If a sale is not made at the first term of court two things are continued in force by the plain letter of the statute: First, the execution is continued in force, and second, the lien of the levy, if one has been made by the sheriff, is also continued in force. But if an execution is special, no levy is required, and it is only necessary to continue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walter v. Scofield
... ... execution deed as against Jacob Walter or his property ... without Jacob Walter's consent. Eoff v. Irvine, ... 108 Mo. 378; Perry on Trusts, p. 246, sec. 202. The burden is ... upon Scofield and the other defendants claiming through him ... to vindicate from all suspicion the ... until the money is paid and the sheriff's deed is ... delivered. Strain v. Murphy, 49 Mo. 337; Leach ... v. Koenig, 55 Mo. 451; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 ... Mo. 263; Cravens v. Gordon, 53 Mo. 287; Massey ... v. Young, 73 Mo. 260; Carter v. Spencer, 7 Ired. (N ... C.) 14. (4) ... ...
-
Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Northwestern Bank
... ... doctrine down to the present time. [ Newman v. Hook, ... 37 Mo. 207; Chouteau v. Goddin, 39 Mo. 229; ... Bales v. Perry, 51 Mo. 449; Stagg v ... Linnenfelser, 59 Mo. 336; Austin v. Loring, 63 ... Mo. 19; Acton v. Dooley, 74 Mo. 63, 69; Blodgett ... v ... ...
-
National Refining Co. v. Continental Development Corp.
... ... 84. (7) Nor can there be any ... estoppel in this case because there was no concealment or ... misrepresentation of any material facts. Blodgett v ... Perry, 97 Mo. 263. (8) In this case, agent Thornhill had ... complete authority to represent his principal; and knowledge ... of any ... ...
-
State, on Inf. of Wallach v. Beckman
... ... even [353 Mo. 1028] if the principle of estoppel were ... otherwise applicable against the state. See, Blodgett v ... Perry, 97 Mo. 263, ... ...