Gore v. Burdette

• Decision Date: 05 January 1914
• Citation: 162 S.W. 321,175 Mo.App. 389
• Parties: LULU W. GORE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM C. BURDETTE et al., Respondents
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

162 S.W. 321

175 Mo.App. 389

LULU W. GORE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM C. BURDETTE et al., Respondents

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 5, 1914

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Chas. H. Mayer, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

George W. Groves and O. W. Watkins for appellants.

William E. Stringfellow for respondents.

OPINION

TRIMBLE, J.

At the May term, 1912, a decree was rendered by the circuit court of Buchanan county, Missouri, in the case of Lulu W. Gore et al v. William C. Burdette et al. wherein the court found that William I. Burdette at the time of his death was the owner in fee simple of certain real estate in said county, and the same was ordered sold by the sheriff in partition.

Pursuant to this order the sheriff advertised the land for sale in partition at the courthouse door. At the sale the respondent herein, William C. Burdette, made a bid of $ 5000 for the land. He claims his bid was made on condition that the title was found to be good. The sheriff claims that his bid was unconditional, and that he, the sheriff, accepted it and struck the land off to him at that price. Respondent refused to pay the amount of his bid. The sheriff reported the fact that he had offered the land for sale, that respondent had bid $ 5000 for it and that the land was stricken off to him for that price but that respondent had failed to pay his bid. Thereafter the sheriff readvertised the land and sold it some months later to A. D. Blythe for $ 3701. He then filed a motion, pursuant to the statute, section 2223, Revised Statutes 1909, to recover the difference between the bid of $ 5000 and the one of $ 3701. The circuit court heard the evidence on the motion and found in favor of respondent. The sheriff and one of the heirs appealed.

A number of interesting questions have been raised and discussed by the briefs. It is unnecessary to pass upon them however inasmuch as the case may be properly disposed of without that.

The trial court heard the evidence and found for respondent. No declarations of law or finding of facts were asked or given. Consequently, if there is any evidence in the record to support the finding, we must defer to it.

The respondent wanted to bid on the property, but not having sufficient money with which to buy, made arrangements with Mr. S. J. Blythe to obtain a loan on the land provided the title was good. Respondent therefore went to the sale prepared to bid on the land on those terms. The decree recited that the deceased owner, whose estate was being partitioned, owned the fee simple title to the land. As a matter of fact in about one-half of the land he owned merely the life estate of another. There was evidence tending to show that plaintiffs in the partition suit knew this but that respondent herein, who was a defendant in the partition suit did not. There was also evidence to the effect that no announcement was made as to this defect in the title, merely the reading of the notice or advertisement of the sale which recited that it would be made pursuant to the decree of court.

There was ample evidence tending to show that when the land was put up, the respondent, to quote the language of one of the witnesses, "finally made a bid of $ 5000 and it was knocked off to him, and right forthwith immediately, he said to the sheriff, "that is on condition I investigate the title and if the title is not good the money I put up now is to come back to me." The sheriff hesitated awhile, and Mr. Groves, as I remember, or some lawyer, talked to him, and then Burdette says, 'It won't do, I don't want it at all unless I can investigate the title.' Q. What was said about the sheriff going on and selling it to somebody else? A. Mr. Burdette says, 'If you won't let the bid below have it, put it up and sell it to some body else, sell it again.' Q. What did...