Ellis v. Powell
| Decision Date | 26 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 35292.,35292. |
| Citation | 117 S.W.2d 225 |
| Parties | ELLIS v. POWELL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; James M. Reeves, Judge.
Action by Frank Ellis against Fannie Powell to set aside a tax deed. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Finch & Finch, of Cape Girardeau, for appellant.
Merrill Spitler, of New Madrid, for respondent.
Action commenced on Feb. 18, 1935, to set aside a tax deed purporting to convey to defendant Lot 12, Block "B" in Latham's Addition to the City of New Madrid. The lot was sold at public sale Dec. 11, 1934, to defendant for $8.50 under a judgment for state and county taxes. The judgment was for $68.54 taxes and $27.90 court costs. Plaintiff did not have actual notice that the lot was advertised for sale. He did not learn of the sale until several days thereafter. At the time of the sale the lot was subject to additional delinquent taxes in the sum of $62.65. There was evidence tending to show that the value of the lot and building thereon was from $200 to $400.
The chancellor rendered judgment setting aside the deed and required plaintiff to refund to defendant the money expended by her on the lot, with interest. Plaintiff paid into court, for the benefit of defendant, said sum of money with interest. Defendant appealed.
All of the proceedings leading to the sale of the lot were regular. Even so, plaintiff contends that the lot was sold for a grossly inadequate consideration, and for that reason the sale should not be sustained.
It is the general rule that a shertiff's sale of real estate under execution will not be set aside on mere inadequacy of consideration. However, an exception to said rule is stated by a standard text as follows: . Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, 161, citing many authorities.
In substance, we so ruled in Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496, 522, 141 S.W. 650; Guinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 173, 202, 98 S.W. 478; Dougherty v. Gangloff, 239 Mo. 649, 661, 144 S.W. 434; Van Graafieland v. Wright, 286 Mo. 414, 428, 228 S.W. 465.
We think the facts bring this case within the exception to the rule. The consideration of $8.50 paid no taxes....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Daub
...to the true value of said lands and improvements as to amount to a fraud in law. Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496, 141 S.W. 650; Ellis v. Powell, 117 S.W.2d 225; Lindsey v. St. Louis, 139 S.W.2d 906. (6) The by the Collector to the plaintiff for the lands in question is invalid for the reason ......
-
Daniel v. Mollett
... ... Cases supra; Rudd v ... Scott, 351 Mo. 1206, 175 S.W. 2d 774; and Annotation, ... 152 A.L.R. 889 -- Missouri cases. See also Ellis v ... Powell (Mo.), 117 S.W. 2d 225; Lindsay v. St ... Louis, 345 Mo. 1141, 1148, 139 S.W. 2d 906, 909 ... [354 ... Mo. 53] ... ...
-
Connell v. Baker, 8933
...supra, 364 Mo. at 1009, 270 S.W.2d at 723; Boland v. Byrne, Mo.App., 145 S.W.2d 755, 756) and does not run with the land. Ellis v. Powell, Mo., 117 S.W.2d 225; Oliver v. Wilhite, 329 Mo. 524, 527, 45 S.W.2d 1083, 1084(1); The Allocation of Original Appellate Jurisdiction in Missouri, 1964 W......
-
Moore v. Brigman
... ... This is the ... rule in decisions involving sales under the Jones-Munger law ... as well as sheriff's sales under executions. Ellis v ... Powell, 117 S.W.2d 225; Johnson v. McAboy, 169 ... S.W.2d 932; Heagerty v. Hawkins, 173 S.W.2d 923; ... Daniel v. Mollett, 188 S.W.2d 54 ... ...