Wickersham v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 313 |
| Parties | ISAAC WICKERSHAM, Plaintiff in Error, v. M. W. JOHNSON, et al., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Laclede Circuit Court.
R. P. Bland, for Plaintiff in Error.
Phelps and Young, for Defendants in Error.
The petition alleged that the defendant, Johnson, with others, obtained a judgment against the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Laclede county, and that execution was issued thereon, and the same was levied upon lands of the plaintiff therein specified; that the defendants caused the sheriff to sell the lands in gross, and not according to the lowest legal sub-divisions, and that Young, acting as attorney for Johnson, and conspring with him for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs, represented to the sheriff and to bidders at the sale, that he held liens on the property to the amount of about eight hundred dollars that would have to be discharged and satisfied before a title would be acquired, and before any valid sale could be made, and that these representations were particularly made to one James Mahan, who intended to bid at the sale. It is further alleged that in order to prevent Mahan and others from bidding for the property at the sale, defendants agreed to and with Mahan that if he would not bid, defendants would bid it in for him and let him have it upon the payment of the execution, and the further sum of eight hundred dollars, to defendants. That on account of said conspiracy, Mahan and others were prevented from bidding at the sale, and that the property was sold to the defendants for a nominal sum, and that they caused the deed to be made to Mahan, he paying off the execution and the additional sum of eight hundred dollars. The petition then avers that Young had no claim or lien of any character whatever upon the property, and that the representations were made for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff and depriving him of his property; that the property was worth fifteen thousand dollars, and that by virtue of his deed, Mahan went into possession of the property, and the same became and was a total loss to plaintiff; in consideration of which he asks judgment for damages.
To this petition defendants demurred and assigned as causes of demurrer, that the petition did not show that the judgment mentioned, under which the alleged sale took place was a valid judgment, or that the defendant in the judgment was ever served with process; that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.
...confer jurisdiction, but if he does not he must at least allege that the judgment was duly given. R. S., 1879, sec. 3551; Wichersham v. Johnson et al., 51 Mo. 313. Defendant, in its answer, did not state either of these things. (2) The plaintiff should not be put upon his proofs to sustain ......
-
McCarty v. Hemker
...in the nature of demurrers to the evidence, requested by appellants at the close of the whole case, were properly denied. Wickersham v. Johnson, 51 Mo. 313; Oliver v. Huckins (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 625; Wachowski v. Lutz, 184 Wis. 584, 201 N. W. 234; Wolfe v. Pugh, Adm'x, 101 Ind. Final......
-
Hart v. Midkiff
...in concert. The evidence was sufficient to make a submissible case of a conspiracy to bring about the result accomplished. Wickersham v. Johnson, 51 Mo. 313. As we understand her contention, the appellant asserts initially that the trial court's order granting a new trial for error in the g......
- Dillender v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company