"Plaintiffs state that they, except Martha A. Turner, are the legal heirs of Robert B. Turner, deceased; that plaintiff Martha A. Turner is the widow of the said Robert B. Turner. Plaintiffs further state: That the said Robert B. Turner was seized and possessed of and had title in fee to the following described real estate, situate, lying, and being in the county of Pemiscot and state of Missouri, to wit, northeast quarter of section 33, township 18, range 13, and had been so possessed of same for a number of years before his death. That R. B. Turner departed this life on the 9th day of December, 1895. That the said R. B. Turner had been in very feeble health for more than one year before his death, during which time he was wholly incapacitated, both mentally and physically, from attending any business whatever. That the land herein described, at the time of the death of the said R. B. Turner, was all wild, uncultivated timber lands, in the possession of no person or persons. That none of the plaintiffs herein were aware of the fact that the said R. B. Turner had ever owned this land until about one month prior to the bringing of this suit. That plaintiffs John Turner and Jim Turner were, at the time of the death of the said R. B. Turner, of unsound mind, and have been most all of the time up to the bringing of this suit. That plaintiff Dolly Farmer was a married woman at the time of the death of R. B. Turner, as aforesaid. That plaintiffs Ivy Turner, Ruth Tinsley, and Robert Martin were each minors up until a few months before bringing this suit. That plaintiff Ruth Tinsley is now a married woman, and was such married woman prior to reaching her majority.
"Plaintiff states that the then acting sheriff of Pemiscot county sold, on the 9th day of September, 1894, all of said land to pay the taxes for the years 1890 and 1892, or claims to have sold said lands for said purpose. Plaintiffs say that said sale or pretended sale made of said lands by the sheriff, as aforesaid, should be held void and of no legal effect, for the following reasons: First. Because, while said lands were all in one section and laid contiguous, and had been assessed as one tract, or lot, and was susceptible of being divided into at least four subdivisions of 40 acres each, either of which subdivisions would have sold for more than enough to have paid all taxes due on said lands, with interest and costs (said taxes, costs, and interest being but $4.50), and would have left to these plaintiffs three-fourths of said lands clear and unincumbered, the sheriff, wholly unmindful of his duties in the premises, did not offer to sell said lands in its smallest legal subdivision, as aforesaid, as the law commands, or in any division whatever, but offered and sold all of said lands at one and the same time, to one and the same bidder, for the sum and price of $40, which, even at the rate and price per acre the land brought at this sale, the said sheriff sold about nine times the amount necessary to sell in order to pay the amount of taxes, interest, and costs against the whole tract, thereby sacrificing all of plaintiff's land for the payment of only $4.50 in taxes, interest, and costs; that all of said land is practically of one character, and of
the same value per acre; that none of the plaintiffs, nor no one representing them, was at said sale, and they did not ask the said sheriff to sell said lands in bulk, but, had they known of said sale, they would have ordered said land divided, and only so much of same sold as would pay the taxes, interest, and costs. Plaintiffs further state that said land, at the date and time of said sale by the sheriff aforesaid, was reasonably worth $800, or $5 per acre.
"Plaintiffs further say that said sheriff's deed should be held void for the reason that no judgment was ever rendered in the circuit court of Pemiscot county in the case of the State of Missouri, to the Use of D. D. Harbert, Collector, v. R. B. Turner, creating a lien on said lands. And plaintiffs further say that no trial was ever had of said cause in the said Pemiscot county circuit court, and that said cause was never submitted to the court, nor judgment rendered by the court. Plaintiffs further state that said sheriff's deed should be held void and of no effect for the further reason that no special execution was issued out of the office of the circuit clerk of Pemiscot county authorizing and commanding said sheriff to sell said lands, or any part thereof, and the said sheriff's acts in the premises in selling, or attempting to sell, said lands, were without process or authority, and therefore void and of no effect. Plaintiffs further state that said sheriff's deed should be held void for the reason that it fails to show the amount of taxes due for each year for which the land was sold to pay.
"Plaintiffs further state that they, prior to the time of filing this suit, tendered to defendant the amount paid at the sheriff's sale, aforesaid, for said lands, and the amount paid by defendant, and those under whom he claims as taxes on said lands up to date, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum; but defendant has refused to accept same and release said lands to plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs now, in open court, tender to defendant said amounts, as aforesaid. Plaintiffs further state that the said sheriff's deed, as aforesaid, places some apparent title in defendant, which is a cloud upon the title of plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law by which said cloud can be removed from their title to said lands.
"Wherefore, the premises considered, plaintiffs pray the court to hear, try, and determine the right, title, and interest of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, in and to said lands respectively, and to adjudge by its judgment or decree the title, estate, and interest of the parties herein severally in and to the aforementioned premises, and that the title conveyed by same, as aforesaid, be canceled and for naught held, and the title conveyed by same, or attempted to be conveyed by said sheriff's deed, be declared in these plaintiffs, and for such other and further relief, orders, judgments, and decrees as to the court may seem just, meet, and proper in the premises, and the plaintiffs ever pray."
