Meyer v. Kuechler

• Decision Date: 31 May 1881
• Citation: 10 Mo.App. 371
• Parties: PETER MEYER, Appellant, v. G. KUECHLER ET AL., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

10 Mo.App. 371

PETER MEYER, Appellant,

v.G. KUECHLER ET AL., Respondents.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 31, 1881.

A sale of property under a deed of trust for less than its value and the insanity of the owner of the equity of redemption at the date of the sale will not warrant a court of equity in setting aside the sale.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Affirmed.

THOROUGHMAN & WARREN, for the appellant.

JOSEPH JECKO, for the respondents.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

In October, 1868, Franz Eulenstein executed a deed of trust conveying the lot described in the petition to Christian Mehl, as trustee to secure the payment of a promissory note for $1,000, in favor of the defendant Kuechler. Eulenstein died in December, 1868, having by last will devised the property to his widow, Caroline Eulenstein, who is the ward of the present plaintiff. In January, 1875, the lot was sold in accordance with the terms of the deed of trust, and defendant Kuechler became the purchaser for $650. In March, 1875, he sold and conveyed the property to defendant Ludwina Singler, at the price of $1,800. In July, 1875, Caroline Eulenstein was adjudged insane, and the plaintiff was appointed her guardian. The object of this suit is to have the trustee's sale set aside, with a cancellation of the consequent conveyances, and a permission to the plaintiff to redeem the property. The cause was heard by a referee, who reported in favor of the defendants. Defendants' exceptions were overruled, the report was confirmed by the court, and judgment rendered accordingly.

Upon a fair analysis of the testimony before the referee--to say nothing of his conclusions as to disputed facts--there does not appear a shadow of any claim to a recovery on the part of the plaintiff, unless it be in the two propositions that the owner of the equity of redemption was in fact insane, although not so adjudged at the time of the trust sale, and that the property was sold for less than its value.

No authority is referred to, nor can any be shown, to the effect that either or both of these propositions can ever suffice, by their own exclusive force, to disturb a trust-sale made in substantial accordance with the terms and stipulations provided and agreed upon by the parties to the trust. As to the fact that an interested party is insane at the time of the sale, there is no more reason for attaching to it an injurious influence than there is for treating in like...