Hughes v. Hughes

Decision Date31 October 1880
Citation72 Mo. 136
PartiesHUGHES, Plaintiff in Error, v. HUGHES.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to Audrain Circuit Court.--HON. G. PORTER, Judge.

REVERSED.

Thos. N. Musick for plaintiff in error.

M. Y. Duncan for defendant in error.

HENRY, J.

This is an action of ejectment for the recovery of the southwest quarter of section 35, township 52, range 7, lying in Audrain county. The answer is a general denial. There was a trial, which resulted in a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs have brought the case to this court on a writ of error. Both parties claim title under the heirs of Lucy Modisett, deceased. The plaintiffs offered in evidence a warranty deed from six of the eight heirs, to Benj. N. Modisett, one of the heirs, conveying to him all their right and title to the west half of said quarter section. Lucy Skinner, the plaintiff, nor her sister Sarah, who together inherited one-eighth of said land, was a party to that deed. Benj. N. Modisett and wife conveyed said land to David W. Hughes, and it was afterward sold, under an execution against said Hughes, to Jacob Sosey, Granville Keller and the plaintiff, Andrew Spalding, who received a sheriff's deed therefor. Sosey and Keller subsequently conveyed it to Margaret Hughes, wife of her co-plaintiff, David W. All of the foregoing conveyances were made pending a suit for partition of said land in the Audrain circuit court, in which a portion of the heirs of Lucy Modisett were plaintiffs and all the heirs were parties. In that cause there was an interlocutory judgment of partition at the May term, 1857, and commissioners appointed to make partition of the land. On the 24th day of September, 1857, they made their report to the court, that it was not susceptible of division, etc. Next follows a report of sale made to the court by the sheriff, stating that, in accordance with an order of sale made by the court, he sold said land on the _____ day of November, 1858, to C. D. Modisett, who neglected to comply with the terms of sale. At the November term, 1857, of said court, it appears that a motion was filed by parties to the suit, to set aside said sale. What became of said motion does not appear, but at the April term, 1859, the curator of the estate of the Skinner children filed a motion to set aside said sale. No other entry occurs until the April term, 1863, when Frank Cave, late sheriff, makes report of the sale of said land under an order of the court to C. D. Modisett, who had failed to comply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Swisher v. Pemberton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1913
    ...parties to the suit had so agreed. The order of sale, based on the partition decree, is the sheriff's authority to make the sale. Hughes v. Hughes, 72 Mo. 136; Agan Shannon, 103 Mo. 661; Loring v. Groomer, 110 Mo. 632. (3) A particular description in a deed, which is contrary to the general......
  • Kansas City v. Scarritt
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1902
    ... ... Campbell v. Gas Co., 84 Mo. 352; Henry v ... McKerlie, 78 Mo. 416; Ringo v. Hughes, 72 Mo ... 136. (b) It was error for the court to admit in evidence, at ... the instance of defendants, the reply, verdict, instructions ... of ... ...
  • Chrisman v. Divinia
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1897
    ...under the original order. Re-recording that order at a subsequent term of court was not a renewal of the order. Such sale is void. Hughes v. Hughes, 72 Mo. 136; Carson v. Hughes, 90 Mo. 173. Second. The order sale must direct whether the land is to be sold during a session of the circuit or......
  • Colvin v. Hauenstein
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1892
    ...is an action at law. (4) Plaintiffs did not show title in themselves. The sheriff's deed offered by them was void on its face. Hughes v. Hughes, 72 Mo. 136; Carson Hughes, 90 Mo. 173; R. S. 1889, secs. 4898, 7166-7; Wagner's Statutes, sec. 31, p. 970. (5) The sale to Hauenstein is not subje......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT