Holdsworth v. Shannon
Decision Date | 31 January 1893 |
Citation | 21 S.W. 85,113 Mo. 508 |
Parties | Holdsworth v. Shannon, et al., Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court--Hon. M. G. McGregor, Judge.
This proceeding was instituted in the Newton circuit court to set aside a sale of the northeast quarter of section 25, township 24, range 32 in that county. The sale was made by Shannon sheriff, acting as trustee in lieu of J. B. Watkins who had declined to act.
On October 1, 1883, one Ida F. Hibbard executed her note to Holdsworth the plaintiff for the sum of $ 600, and to secure it gave a deed of trust of even date on the property mentioned, and also on the southwest quarter of the same section, etc. The note matured October 1, 1888, and remained unpaid. The sale mentioned occurred April 24, 1889, and the petition herein was filed May seventh next thereafter. Other than facts already mentioned, the substance of the petition is the following: That plaintiff sent an agent to attend the sale and bid on the property to the full amount of the debt due, so as to secure his debt, then amounting with interest to $ 720; that this agent was on his way to Neosho and would have reached there, and did reach there in ample time to have attended the sale had it been made within the usual hours but that the sheriff-trustee, in disregard of his official duties, sold the land in question at an unusual hour, to-wit at ten thirty A. M. of the day of sale, when plaintiff's agent was not present; that said sheriff, acting in collusion with defendants Hinton and Harbison, sold the northeast quarter aforesaid to them for $ 121, when there were no other bidders present; that plaintiff's agent arrived at the courthouse door at twelve o'clock M. of the day of sale and Shannon the sheriff, having left town, went to his deputy Johnson, and demanded a resale of the property described in the deed, and then and there offered to bid for the same the full sum then due on the note and costs, which demand and offer said deputy denied and rejected; that Hinton and Harbison were fully aware that the sale was made at an unusual hour; that the property was worth much more than the bid made therefor, to-wit, $ 1000; that plaintiff is ready and willing, upon a resale of the premises, to bid the full amount of the debt due and all costs; that Ida F. Hibbard the debtor, is wholly insolvent, so that if said sale be not set aside, plaintiff cannot recover or realize the amount due on said note; plaintiff, therefore, prays that said sale and all proceedings thereunder be set aside, and for other and further relief.
The answer of the defendants was a general denial.
The testimony of the sheriff, as taken from the abstract of plaintiff, with emendations and additions from the record, is substantially this:
John F. Shannon: "I was sheriff of Newton county in April, 1889 at the time the sale in this case was made, and I made that sale as such sheriff. The sale was made near eleven o'clock A. M. of that day. I do not recollect whether it was before or after that time,--probably a few minutes before. The only thing I recollect it by was the 'Frisco train coming in, and my waiting until after that mail was opened. That train was due at Neosho about ten o'clock I think. J. B. Watkins is the only man representing the mortgagee that I had any correspondence with. The letters received from him were dated at Lawrence, Kansas. The advertisement of this sale was made at the request of J. B. Watkins, through his attorney Patterson. I was expecting some one from Lawrence, Kansas, to be present at the sale, and that is the reason I waited for the 'Frisco trains, one from the east, the other from the northwest. I don't recollect at what time the train from the northwest reached Neosho. It was directly after that train began to run into Neosho, and I don't know--or did not then--what its time was. I just never thought of that train. I think trains were running regularly over that road at that time; but I do not know how long they had been. I do not recollect, but think the trains over this road arrived about twelve o'clock M. I did not think anything about that train. If I had thought about it, more than likely I would have expected the man that way; but I did not. I generally began my sheriff sales from half-past one o'clock to two o'clock in the day. In the course of my duties as sheriff I had never made a sale under a trust deed or an execution as early in the day as I made this one. I usually made them about half-past one, after we got back from dinner. Immediately after making this sale, I went to what is known as the 'Johnson Diggings,' perhaps five miles south of Joplin, and returned about midnight that night. I left a deputy at Neosho, but I left him no instructions regarding this case. I recall as being present at this sale Mr. Hinton, Mr. Cravens, Maj. Harbison, Thomas Lackey, N. H. Manfir. Mr. Hackney, of Carthage, was standing near, and Mr. Hazeltine, of Springfield, were the gentlemen I was going into the country with, and they were waiting for me. I came to make this sale at this time of day in this way: Circuit court was in session, and the day before this a writ of ouster was issued against a party at the 'Johnson Diggings.' The parties to take possession of the land were to be there on the 'Frisco train, and Mr. Hackney and Mr. Hazeltine wanted me to start immediately. I told them I had a sale to make, and would have to wait until the train came in and the mail was opened. I thought some one would come on that train, or that I would get a letter, telling me what to do. Nobody came and no letter. I had asked the real estate men and lawyers in town if they represented the Watkins company, and none of them had any such authority, and, after finding that no one came and no letter of advice, I sold the land and went with these gentlemen to attend the writ of ouster.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yeaman v. Lepp
...397; Bouldin v. Ewart, 63 Mo. 330; Gordon v. O'Neil, 96 Mo. 350; Roth v. Galbert, 123 Mo. 21; Carrigan v. Smith, 126 Mo. 304; Holdsworth v. Shannon, 113 Mo. 508; v. Hart, 8 Mo. 448; Hicks & Hammond v. Perry, 7 Mo. 346. (3) The allegations are to be taken as true when considered on demurrer.......
-
Munford v. Keet
...to each, and bound to protect the interest of all parties concerned. Conway v. Nolty, 11 Mo. 74; Shaw v. Potter, 50 Mo. 281; Hollingsworth v. Shannon, 113 Mo. 508; Cole Co. v. Madden, 91 Mo. 585; State ex rel. Moore, 72 Mo. 285; Hardware Co. v. Building Co., 132 Mo. 454. (2) In this State a......
-
Alt v. Fullerton
... ... Bliss, Plead., secs. 347 and 364; Noble v ... Blount, 77 Mo. 235; Allan v. Sales, 56 Mo. 28; ... Schanewesk v. Hoberetch, 117 Mo. 22; Holdsworth ... v. Shannon, 113 Mo. 508. (4) Had all the alleged ... equities, now for the first time asserted by the appellants, ... been set forth in the ... ...