Hobein v. Drewell
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 450 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOBEIN & WIFE, Respondents, v. DREWELL, Appellant. |
1. Hobein v. Murphy, 20 Mo. 447 affirmed.
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
Action by the assignees against the maker of a note negotiable under the statute, but not assigned for value.
The defence was, that the note was given for the purchase money of land conveyed to the defendant by a deed containing a covenant of general warranty, which passed no title.
A judgment was rendered against Hobein before a justice of the peace on the 30th of September, 1843, a transcript of which was filed in the Circuit Court January 1st, 1844. On the 25th of August, 1847, after the lien of the judgment had expired, execution issued under which the land was sold, and a sheriff's deed executed to the purchaser. This was the title acquired by the defendant.
On the first of February, 1847, Hobein executed a mortgage of the land, which was afterwards foreclosed, the land sold under a special fi. fa. and a sheriff's deed executed to Murphy, the purchaser. This deed the defendant offered in evidence, to show in Murphy a title superior to the one acquired by him; but it was rejected, the court having previonsly, in a suit by Hobein against Murphy, set it aside as void for want of notice of the execution to Hobein, who resided in another county, After a judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount of the note, the defendant appealed.
N. Holmes, for appellant.
Delafield, Jones and Stevenson, for respondent.
The objection to a recovery on the note here sued upon is, that it was given for the price of land sold, and that the purchaser acquired no title, the vendor having none himself.
The objection to the title was, that the party had acquired it under an execution sale upon a general judgment against the owner, who had previously mortgaged it to another, and that the mortgage had been foreclosed and the land sold under a special fi. fa. and bought in by a stranger, in whose hands the title was still outstanding.
The reply to this was, that the sale was void for want of the notice of execution required by the act of the 12th March, 1849, and upon this ground the court rejected the sheriff's deed under the fi. fa when offered by the defendant, having previously so decided at the same term, in a direct proceeding by Hobein against Murphy, instituted to set aside the deed for that cause.
This point, however, has been decided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. King
...the deed void but only voidable, even if no notice had been given. (Landis v. Perkins, 12 Mo. 238; Draper v. Bryson, 17 Mo. 71; 20 Mo. 447; 20 Mo. 450; 9 Mo. 713; 16 Mo. 68.) VIII. By the construction of the effect of records and judicial proceedings, sales and decrees of the Common Law Cou......
-
Atkison v. Amick
...the same was void. Yet if the sale was not ipso facto void, still Atkison is entitled to damages. (Hobein v. Murphy, 20 Mo. 447; Hobein v. Drewell, 20 Mo. 450.) RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. The only point in this case necessary for our decision involves the authority o......
-
Ray v. Stobbs
...46.) For this reason the sale should be set aside. This point was not decided in the cases of Hobein v. Murphy, 20 Mo. 447, and Hobein v. Drewell, 20 Mo. 450. SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. We do not consider that the principle of the case of Hobein v. Murphy, 20 Mo. 447-......
- Hobein v. Murphy