Ford v. French

• Decision Date: 31 October 1880
• Citation: 72 Mo. 250
• Parties: FORD et al., Appellants, v. FRENCH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

72 Mo. 250

FORD et al., Appellants,

v.FRENCH.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1880.

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.--HON. G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

James Raley for appellants.

B. G. Barrow, Vrooman & French for respondent.

NORTON, J.

This is a suit in ejectment commenced in 1874, in the Schuyler circuit court. The petition is in the usual form. The answer is a general denial, with specific defenses set up, which it is not necessary here to specify. On a trial of the cause in the Randolph circuit court, where the cause had been taken by change of venue, judgment was rendered for defendants, from which plaintiffs have appealed.

The only question presented is, whether the court, at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, erred in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence. Both parties claim through George Bridwell as the common source of title. Plaintiffs, in support of their title, offered in evidence a deed from said Bridwell to A. Bridwell and Edward Butts, dated December 19th, 1859, also an order of the Schuyler circuit court made in August, 1874, directing the then sheriff of said county to execute and deliver to plaintiffs, as the heirs of James H. Ford, deceased, a deed to the land in controversy, which order recites that judgment was rendered in said court on the 17th day of May, 1860, in favor of one William Dunn and against George Bridwell, A. Mays, Abraham Bridwell and Edward Butts, for $638.61, upon which judgment execution issued, which was levied upon the land in controversy, and the land was sold October 4th, 1860, to James H. Ford, deceased, for $82, which was paid, but the sheriff making the sale did not execute and deliver to Ford a deed. Plaintiffs next offered the deed of the sheriff made in pursuance of said order, dated October 26th, 1876, conveying to plaintiffs the land in suit. They also offered the deposition of one Caywood, who testified that he was attorney of said Dunn and obtained the judgment against Bridwell and others, under which the land was sold, that he was present at the sale and acted as clerk thereof. He also testified that six or more months prior to said sale he, as the attorney for French and also for Hughes, had attached said land in suits brought by them respectively against Bridwell. Plaintiffs then read the deposition of McGoldrick, who testified that he and Caywood, as attorneys for Hughes, attached said land on the 23rd day of December, 1859, and, as attorneys for French, attached the same land on the 16th day of January, 1860, in attachment suits against Bridwell; that judgment was rendered in each of said suits October 10th, 1860; that executions issued thereon; that Bridwell having died before sale under the execution, the judgments were filed in the probate court of Schuyler county, where the lien was enforced, and the land sold for the payment of the said judgments, at which...