J. C. Nichols Inv. Co. v. Roorbach

• Decision Date: 03 June 1942
• Docket Number: 37795
• Citation: 162 S.W.2d 274
• Parties: J. C. NICHOLS INV. CO. v. ROORBACH et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

162 S.W.2d 274

J. C. NICHOLS INV. CO. v. ROORBACH et al

No. 37795

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division 1

June 3, 1942

Simrall & Simrall, of Liberty, and F. A. Guy, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Lawson & Hale, of Liberty, for respondents.

OPINION

GANTT Presiding Judge.

Action against Roorbach and his wife to set aside a tax deed executed by the Collector of Clay County conveying Lot 2 Block 6, Dundee Hills, a subdivision in said county, to Roorbach.

The lot was sold for taxes under the Jones-Munger Tax Law, § 11117 et seq., R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 11117 et seq. Roorbach was the purchaser for $ 40. It is admitted that at the time of the sale the plaintiff owned the lot. It also is admitted that at that time the lot was of the value of $ 1,000. It also is admitted that plaintiff made no effort to redeem the lot from said sale within the statutory period of two years. In due course plaintiff tendered to Roorbach all money expended by him as a result of his purchase of the lot. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appealed.

Defendants challenge the assignments of error in the motion for a new trial as no sufficient to present a question of error. Plaintiff contends that as the chancellor made no specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, the assignments are sufficient. As stated in Rhodus v. Geatley, 347 Mo 397, 147 S.W.2d 631, loc. cit. 635, 636, assignments of error in the motion for a new trial in the instant case may be summarized as follows: 'That the judgment below was for the wrong party, was contrary to the evidence and to the law and against the equities of the case, and that under the pleadings and the evidence the court should have found for the plaintiffs and not for the defendant'. In that case we ruled the question as follows: 'If the trial chancellor has made and filed specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as a basis for his decision, the unsuccessful party can and should assign error specifically as to certain of these findings; but where, as here, the chancellor has made only a general finding for one party and against the other and where the losing party desires us to review this general decision, claiming that the chancellor has reached the wrong conclusion from the evidence and the law, he cannot possibly make his assignments of error more specific than those contained in the present motion'.

The assignments of error in the motion for a new trial in the instant...