Bogarth v. Caldwell Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1845
• Citation: 9 Mo. 358
• Parties: BOGARTH v. CALDWELL COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

9 Mo. 358

BOGARTH

v.CALDWELL COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1845.

APPEAL FROM CALDWELL.

KIRTLEY & REED, for Plaintiff. It is insisted by the counsel for complainant (Bogarth), that the Circuit Court did err in dismissing said bill: First. Because he could not have adequate remedy elsewhere. Second. Because, when said complainant bought said land and executed said bond, it was with the understanding that said sale was in all things legal, and that the sale would be valid to convey to the purchaser a bona fide title. Third. Because, inasmuch (according to the tenor of said bill), said sale was illegal as above stated, it would be contrary to equity and good conscience to compel said complainant to pay said demand, and would inflict on him an irreparable injury, and because the Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, when there was equity abundantly set out on the face of the same. See Digest of 1835, p. 562, § 1; 2 Story's Eq. 166, 172.

SCOTT, J.

This was a bill filed by Bogarth for an injunction and for relief against a judgment obtained on a bond given by him for a portion of one of the sixteenth sections in the county of Caldwell. The alleged grounds for relief, are, that the sale was illegal; that a majority of the householders of the township did not sign the petition to the Circuit Court, for a sale of the 16th section, a portion of which he became the purchaser, and for which the bond was given on which the judgment was rendered against which relief is sought; that the sale was not advertised sixty days. It is further alleged as a ground of relief, that the land purchased was situated in the county formerly inhabited by the Mormons, and in consequence of their expulsion by the authority of the State, the land purchased has been greatly reduced in value. On a demurrer to this bill it was dismissed, and the cause is brought to this court.

The allowance of a defense of this character to a purchaser of the school lands, would be attended with the most disastrous consequences. The party has all he acquired by the purchase, is in the uninterrupted possession of the land, and not threatened with any suit or litigation respecting his title, and yet asks that his agreement may be rescinded, as the sale was not conducted according to law.

Whether sales of the 16th section are judicial sales, in the sense which would protect purchasers from the consequences of irregularity in the proceedings of the court ordering them, it is not necessary now to...