Kuhn v. McNeil
Decision Date | 31 March 1871 |
Parties | MATILDA KUHN, Appellant, v. JOHN MCNEIL et al., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Hill & Jewett, for appellant.
What is a cloud must generally be determined from an examination of the cases where that matter has been decided. In Morris v. Hogle, 37 Ill. 150, it was decided that a sale under a void decree was a cloud, and the sale was set aside. In England v. Lewis, 25 Cal. 357, it is decided that a sale under a judgment claimed as a lien, where in law there was no lien, would be a cloud, and such sale was enjoined. In Pettit v. Shepherd, 5 Paige's Ch. 501, an attempted sale under a judgment claiming a lien where none existed in law, was restrained. In Lyon v. Hunt, 11 Ala. 295, an irregular tax deed, casting a cloud, is set aside; In Burt v. Cassity, 12 Ala. 734, a sale on execution claiming a lien, not valid in law, is restrained. See also Oakley v. Trustees of Williamsburg, 6 Paige's Ch. 264-5, where invalid assessments for street improvements were declared to be a cloud. But the case in which this question is most clearly discussed, and a practical and sensible rule laid down, is Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, where the court gives this rule: Now, where tested by this rule, a sale under the execution asked to be enjoined in this case would be a very dark cloud. That the court will restrain an act which, if committed, would cast a cloud upon plaintiff's title, is well settled by the cases above quoted and many others.
Mauro & Laughlin, for respondents.
The plaintiff claims to be the owner in fee of the premises described in the petition. He avers that the defendant McNeil, as sheriff, has levied upon the premises, and that he is about to sell them upon an execution against a third party who has no title or interest in the property. An injunction is asked upon the ground that the threatened sale, if proceeded with to its consummation, will cloud the plaintiff's title.
I see nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rookery Realty, Loan, Investment & Building Company v. Johnson
... ... any extrinsic or parole testimony, but could prove it by the ... record. [ Drake v. Jones, 27 Mo. 428; Kuhn v ... McNeil, 47 Mo. 389; Wilcox v. Walker, 94 Mo ... 88, 7 S.W. 115; Clark v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 272; ... Russell v. Lumber Co., 112 Mo ... ...
-
Parks v. People's Bank of De Soto
...be substituted for an action of ejectment, when in fact no real controversy might arise after the sale. This ruling was followed in Kuhn v. McNeil, 47 Mo. 389, and was approvingly cited in McPike v. Pen, 51 63. It was extended even to sales under deeds of trust where the title was matter of......
-
Mathias v. Arnold
...that may be asserted by such purchaser (see Russell v. Lumber Co., 112 Mo. 40, 20 S.W. 26; Wilcox v. Walker, 94 Mo. 88, 7 S.W. 115; Kuhn v. McNeil, 47 Mo. 389; Henman Westheimer, 110 Mo.App. 191, 85 S.W. 101); that in order that a cloud may be cast upon the title of a record owner in posses......
-
Payne v. The Daviess County Savings Association
...may be asserted by such purchaser. Wilcox v. Walker, 94 Mo. 89; Haeussler v. Thomas, 4 Mo.App. 463; Drake v. Jones, 27 Mo. 429; Kuhn v. McNeil, 47 Mo. 389; Witthaus v. Bank, 18 Mo.App. 181; Clark Insurance Co., 52 Mo. 273; Russell v. Lumber Co., 112 Mo. 41. Boyd Dudley for respondent. (1) U......