Langford v. Few
Decision Date | 15 November 1898 |
Citation | 47 S.W. 927,146 Mo. 142 |
Parties | Langford, Appellant, v. Few |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court -- Hon. John G. Wear, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. L Fort and C. L. Keaton for appellant.
(1) The execution offered in evidence, and the return of the constable thereon, with the other proceedings of the constable under said execution, is sufficient to show that the respondent had no property subject to said execution; and the return thereon is, in fact, a return of nulla bona in this proceeding. R. S. 1889, secs. 4907, 6286-7; Bacon v Beven, 44 Miss. 293; State ex rel. v. Brady, 53 Mo.App. 202; Hale v. Talbott, 86 Ind. 447; State v. Still, 11 Mo.App. 283. (2) Irregularities in the judgment and execution under which the land was sold can not affect the title of the appellant, who is a stranger to those proceedings, and had no notice of irregularities, if any existed, at the time of his purchase. Whitman v Taylor, 60 Mo. 127; Sachse v. Clingingsmith, 97 Mo. 406; Brown v. Walker, 11 Mo.App. 226; Leonard v. Sparks, 117 Mo. 103. The sheriff's deed was sufficient on its face, and the facts aliunde the deed support, instead of impeach, its recitals. Huhn v. Lang, 122 Mo. loc. cit. 606.
J. C. Sheppard and W. W. Perkins for respondent.
(1) This sheriff's deed no where recites the fact that an execution was ever issued by the justice of the peace, or delivered to the constable, or that he ever made a nulla bona return thereon, which were necessary prerequisites to the issuance of an execution from the circuit clerk's office. Burke v. Miller, 46 Mo. 258. (2) It was necessary that the transcript execution should not only have issued, but should have been returned by the constable nulla bona, in order to pass the title to the lands in the sheriff's deed. (3) The return of the constable does not amount to a nulla bona return. He must recite the acts done by him, so that the court may determine whether the return is sufficient. R. S. 1889, sec. 6287; Burke v. Miller, 46 Mo. 258; 7 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 155; Burke v. Flurnoy, 4 Mo. 116; Conce v. Munday, 3 Mo. 373. The contention of appellant that he was a stranger to the proceedings in the justice's court, and that he can not be affected by any irregularities in such proceedings, this being a collateral proceeding, is not tenable, for the reason that the question in this case is the direct question as to whether there was or was not a nulla bona return, a fact upon which his title, under the law, stands or falls. Jordan v. Surghnor, 107 Mo. 520.
Action in ejectment to recover the south half of the northwest quarter of section 8, township 24, range 1, East, in Ripley county. The answer is a general denial and plea of homestead rights. The reply is a general denial. Plaintiff's evidence is: 1st, a deed from the sheriff of Ripley county, dated October 18, 1893, recorded March 2, 1894, reciting that on November 7, 1892, Wm. P. Morrison recovered a judgment against defendant before a justice of the peace in said county; that a transcript of the judgment was filed in the circuit clerk's office on the 13th of December, 1892, and upon which an execution was issued on March 18, 1893, directed to the sheriff of Ripley county, and under which he levied on the land in controversy, and sold it to plaintiff for twenty-five dollars; 2d, a transcript of the judgment of the justice of the peace in favor of Morrison and against Few. Attached to and forming a part of the transcript is a recital that an execution was issued on the 13th of December, 1892, and a further statement signed by the justice of the peace, as follows: "March 13, 1893, execution returned, not satisfied, with a schedule of defendant's property, to the amount of two hundred and twenty three and 87-100 dollars." It was agreed that the monthly rents and profits is four dollars per month.
The defendant's evidence is: 1st, a deed from Mrs. M. J. Morrison and seven others, without date, but acknowledged October 2, 1886, and recorded June 24, 1889, conveying an undivided ten-elevenths interest in the north half of the northwest quarter and all of the south half of the northwest quarter that lies north of Big Barren Creek, in Sec. 28, T. 25, N., R. 1, E., to defendant, in consideration of three hundred and ninety-five dollars, in trade, and one hundred and fifty and 45-100 dollars; 2d, the testimony of defendant that he took possession of the land in January 1888, but did not have the deed recorded until he came to Ripley county; that he stayed on the place two years; made one crop, then moved off, returned in the fall and the next spring sold it to J. W. Shipp on the 9th of April, 1890; that W. P. Morrison exhibited the sheriff's deed to him but he did not examine it; that he sold the place for some stock, traded the stock and with the proceeds, and money he borrowed from the county, he paid for the land. In rebuttal, plaintiff introduced the deed from Few to Shipp, the deed is not set out in the record, but it is there stated to be a warranty deed, recorded, but where or when is not shown. Plaintiff then offered the complete transcript of the justice of the peace in the case of Morrison v. Few, including the execution and return of the constable. The return is the material part and is as follows: with the following added: (Signatures, and seals, and oaths attached), to which is also underwritten the following: "Copy of the Schedule. January 21, 1893. State of Missouri, County of Ripley. To the Justice Court of Kelley township, of J. W. Hufstedler, J. P.: W. L. Few sets forth upon oath the following described property to the amount of three hundred dollars worth as scheduled, to wit:" (Here follows an itemized list of personal property with the values set opposite each item, and aggregating $ 239.40, but there is no signature or jurat of any one attached to it). Defendant objected and the court excluded the transcript. Plaintiff then offered again the transcript on file in the circuit clerk's office and also the note upon which the judgment of the justice of the peace was based.
The plaintiff asked and the court refused to give the following instructions:
The court of its own motion gave the following instructions:
There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
It thus appears very vaguely that defendant owned an undivided ten-elevenths of the north half of the northwest quarter and all of the south half of the northwest quarter that lies north of Big Barren creek, in section 28, township 25, north range one, east, and that about 1890 he sold...
To continue reading
Request your trial