Grant v. Huston
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Black |
| Citation | 105 Mo. 97,16 S.W. 680 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1891 |
| Parties | GRANT v. HUSTON. |
v.
HUSTON.
SCHOOL-FUND MORTGAGES — FORECLOSURE — SALE WHEN COURT IS NOT IN SESSION.
1. A mortgage to a county to secure a loan of school funds is not rendered invalid by reciting that it was for the use of a specified section of school land, instead of for the use of the township to which the fund belonged. Distinguishing Douthitt v. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268.
[16 S.W. 681]
2. Rev. St. Mo. 1855, p. 1424, § 22, prescribes the requisites of school-fund mortgages, and requires them to authorize the sheriff to sell in case of default. Subsequent sections prescribe what notice shall be given, where the sale shall be made, etc. Held, that while sales under these statutory mortgages must be made during sessions of court, yet where a school-fund mortgage contains other provisions prescribing the notice, time, place, manner, and terms of sale, and declaring that the sheriff's deed shall be as effectual as if made under judgment of a court, it is valid as a common-law mortgage, and a sale thereunder when the court is not in session confers a valid title.
Appeal from circuit court, Vernon county; D. P. STRATTON, Judge.
T. J. Myers, for appellant. M. T. January, for respondent.
BLACK, J.
This is ejectment for a parcel of land in Hall's addition to Nevada. The plaintiff's title is a deed to him from V. O. Grant, dated the 14th March, 1859. The defendant put in evidence the following deeds: First, a mortgage from V. O. Grant and wife to Vernon county, dated the 18th May, 1858, and recorded 29th October, 1858, conveying 20 acres of land, of which the land in suit is a part; second, a deed signed by the sheriff of that county, dated the 26th March, 1860, purporting to have been made in execution of the power of sale contained in the mortgage, conveying the 20 acres to Thomas J. Marris; third, sundry other deeds vesting all the title which Marris acquired in the defendant. The circuit court found the issues for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
1. Plaintiff objected to the mortgage as evidence on the ground that it was void because Vernon county had no power to hold lands in trust for section 16, there being no such a person or corporation, which objection was overruled, and this ruling presents the first question. The mortgage conveys the land to Vernon county by appropriate words to secure the payment of a bond executed by Grant to the county for the payment of $600 "for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Butler County, No. 38916.
...The fact that the foreclosure sale was made in vacation does not render the sale void. Sec. 10385, R.S. 1939; Grant v. Huston, 106 Mo. 97, 16 S.W. 680. (9) There was a legal publication as testified by the witness Bob Wolpers same was introduced in evidence. Sec. 14969 provides that "the af......
-
Taylor v. Von Schroeder
...to the estate of her deceased husband. And when Mr. Taylor directly made to her the proposal to which they wished her to accede, while 16 S.W. 680 personally expressing a willingness to do so, in the same breath she referred him to "Mr. Parsons, her personal friend and agent, and the truste......
-
Walters v. Senf
...became subject to the terms and power of sale expressed in that instrument. Mann v. Best, (1876,) 62 Mo. 491; Grant v. Huston, (1891,) 105 Mo. 97, 16 S. W. Rep. 680. The county acquired thereby the right to resort to the security to realize the amount of the loan, to the extent and in the m......
-
Murphy v. Butler County, No. 38916.
...The fact that the foreclosure sale was made in vacation does not render the sale void. Sec. 10385, R.S. 1939; Grant v. Huston, 106 Mo. 97, 16 S.W. 680. (9) There was a legal publication as testified by the witness Bob Wolpers same was introduced in evidence. Sec. 14969 provides that "t......
-
Taylor v. Von Schroeder
...to the estate of her deceased husband. And when Mr. Taylor directly made to her the proposal to which they wished her to accede, while 16 S.W. 680 personally expressing a willingness to do so, in the same breath she referred him to "Mr. Parsons, her personal friend and agent, and the t......
-
Walters v. Senf
...became subject to the terms and power of sale expressed in that instrument. Mann v. Best, (1876,) 62 Mo. 491; Grant v. Huston, (1891,) 105 Mo. 97, 16 S. W. Rep. 680. The county acquired thereby the right to resort to the security to realize the amount of the loan, to the extent and in the m......