Walton v. Harris

• Decision Date: 30 April 1881
• Parties: WALTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. HARRIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

73 Mo. 489

WALTON, Plaintiff in Error,

v.HARRIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1881.

Error to Washington Circuit Court.--HON. LOUIS F. DINNING, Judge.

REVERSED.

J. F. Bush for plaintiff in error.

Frank Harris pro se.

NORTON, J.

This is an action of ejectment to recover the possession of certain lands in Washington county. Plaintiff claims title to the premises through defendant, by virtue of a sale made by the sheriff of said county on an execution in favor of Joseph Walton and C. C. Walton against Frank Harris, the defendant, at which sale plaintiff became the purchaser, and to whom the sheriff executed a deed to the land in controversy. The said deed contained, among others, the following recital: “Whereas the Weekly Independent was the only newspaper which was being printed, published or issued in said county of Washington, from the time when said execution came to my hands on the 29th day of December, 1875, until the time of the sale of said premises on the 11th day of February, 1876, of which newspaper the defendant, Fank Harris, was, during the same time, sole managing and controlling editor, proprietor and publisher; and whereas, more than twenty days before said 11th day of February, 1876, on or about the 12th day of January, 1876, I, the said sheriff, did prepare a notice for the sale of said premises * * and present said notice to said defendant, Frank Harris, at the office of said Weekly Independent, for insertion and publication in said newspaper, according to the requirements of the statute in such cases, and at the same time offer and tender to defendant his charges for the insertion and publication of such notice in said newspaper for four weeks and for more than twenty days, and the said defendant, who was in sole charge and control of said newspaper, refused to insert or publish said notice, and by refusal prevented the publication and insertion thereof in said newspaper.” The deed further recites that after such refusal the sheriff advertised the said notice of sale by printed handbills put up in six public places in said county for more than twenty days before the sale. All the recitals in the deed as to the refusal of defendant to publish said notice were proved by the evidence of the sheriff, whereupon the said deed was offered in evidence and objected to by defendant on the ground that the notice by handbills was not sufficient to authorize a sale. This objection was sustained by the court, and its action in that respect is...