Cole County v. Madden

91 Mo. 585
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 Mo. 585 (Cole County v. Madden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cole County v. Madden, 91 Mo. 585 (Mo. 1887).

Opinion

Ray, J.

This was a proceeding in the Cole circuit [593]*593court, to set aside a sheriff's sale of certain real estate, therein mentioned. In November, 1882, as shown by the record, there was due Cole county, for the use of its general school fund, and of the several school townships, mentioned in the petition, the principal sum of eight hundred and twenty-four and one hundred and' sixty-two dollars as interest thereon. This indebtedness accrued on certain school bonds, executed by Gfreen C. Berry, as principal, and A. C. Scruggs and H. W. Long, as sureties, and was further secured by a school mortgage, in the usual form, on a part of inlot number 461, in Jefferson City. On the day, aforesaid, the county court of said county, under section 7113, Revised Statutes, 1879, made an order of sale of said real estate, under said mortgage, and delivered a copy of same to defendant, Wagner, sheriff of said county, under which the mortgaged premises, at the ensuing May term of the circuit court of said county, were sold, by said sheriff, to the defendant, Madden,, at and for the sum of one hundred dollars.

The defendant, Madden, paid the one hundred dollars to the sheriff, and received from him a certificate of purchase at that price. Six days thereafter, and during the same term of said circuit court, and prior to the execution of any sheriff’s deed therefor, the plaintiffs, Cole county, and Scruggs and Long, the sureties of said Berry in said school bonds, commenced this proceeding by petition in equity, in the circuit court of said county, against said sheriff and said purchaser, to set aside said sale of said mortgaged premises.

The petitiou alleges that the sheriff’s sale to Madden was and is invalid, and ought to be so held. The reasons assigned therefor are, in substance, to the effect following: That Cole county, at the time the sale took place, had no one present to protect its interest, and that of the school funds committed to its [594]*594charge; that plaintiff liad provided an agent to attend said sale, and that Ms absence therefrom was occasioned by defendant, Wagner, as sheriff, in the conduct and management of said sale and the consequent misapprehension of plaintiff’s agent in regard thereto, brought about in the manner and under the circumstances therein stated, and fully appearing in the evidence at the trial hereinafter stated; and that, by reason thereof, the mortgaged premises were sacrificed and sold to Madden at and for a grossly inadequate price.

The answer of defendants was a general denial, except that there was a sale and that defendant, Madden, was the purchaser thereat, and then charged, affirmatively, that the county had an agent present at the sale, who bid on the property, and that if the property was sold for an inadequate price, it was solely on account of the negligence of plaintiff. The replication denied the new matter set up in the answer.

Upon the trial, the court found the issues for the plaintiff, and decreed that the sale be set aside, and that the sheriff pay back to Madden the purchase price. After unsuccessful motions for review, and in arrest, the defendants appealed to this court. At the trial it was agreed that the principal and sureties in the school bonds, for which the lot in question was sold to defendant, Madden, were all insolvent, and that Madden had never received any deed under said sale, and that none had been acknowledged by the sheriff. It also appeared in evidence, that said lot, at the time of sale, was worth from one thousand to twelve hundred or thirteen hundred dollars, one witness placing its value from one thousand to two thousand dollars. It further appeared in evidence, that, besides the lot in question, certain “farm land” of said Berry was also to be sold, on the same day, under a similar school mortgage, to secure other like bonds of Berry, with other sureties thereon, to the amount of one thousand dollars ; that the [595]*595■sureties on these bonds were perfectly solvent, but that said “ farm land” was only worth about three hundred dollars, and at the sale that day made, only brought two hundred and fifty-five dollars. It is, also, conceded that the “farm land” was first offered for sale.

As to what occurred at said sales, how the same were conducted, what was done and said, by and between the sheriff and the agent of the county, during the progress thereof, in reference thereto, and whether the same occurred during the sale of the farm land, or the lot in question; and, especially, whether the plaintiff’s agent was actually present at the sale of the lot in question, or bid upon the same.; and if absent, whether that absence was occasioned by the sheriff in the conduct and management thereof, or by a misunderstanding or misapprehension on the part of said sheriff or agent, or both, as to what was to be done, and when done, or by whom done, the record in the cause presents a sharp and decided conflict between the testimony offered. by the plaintiffs and that adduced by the defendants in that regard.

The testimony in chief for plaintiff was, in substance, as follows:

Edwin Silver, said: “In May, 1883, when lot in controversy was sold, I was prosecuting attorney of Cole county ; remember the day; it was May 24 ; the circuit court was in session during that entire day ; I was busy in the trial of an important case in court; in the morning of the day of sale the sheriff came into the court room and said, that the county court judges had instructed him to tell me to attend the sale to take place that afternoon under two school mortgage judgments in favor of the county and against Gí-reen C. Berry and others; he had, as I took them to be, executions in his hands ; I looked at them and asked what the court wanted me to do, and he said bid up the debt on the property; I told him very well, but to call me when he was ready to [596]*596make the sale, and he said he would; after dinner he did call me, and I went outside of the court house, and my recollection is that he had not commenced selling the Green Berry property; I was nfeeded in the court house, being in the trial going on, and I saw Mr. T. M. Winston, Jr., deputy clerk of the county court, and asked him if he would not stay there at the sale, as he knew more about the matter than I did, and bid on the property at the sale for me, and he said he would ; I then went back into the court room, and in a very few minutes Mr. Winston came into the court room and reported that the sale of the farm land was going on, and that he had run it up to what he thought it was worth; that the securities on the school bond for that tract of land were solvent, and that the county did not want the land when the personal securities were good, and ought not to buy it in ; I told him I would go out with bim to. the place of sale to see the sheriff, who was then crying the farm land, and I said to Wagner, in substance, what Winston had said to me, and that I did not know what to do ; Wagner stopped the sale to hear what I had to say; I told him I did hot know what to do, and he said ‘ I will go and get Joseph Stampfli,’ who is, and'was at the time, the presiding justice of the county court, ‘and bring him up here to see’; I assented to Wagner’s proposition; Wagner then stopped the sale; this was pending the sale of the farm land as I understood, and he, Wagner, started to go out of the gate ; Stampfli lived one and a half blocks from the court house ; I don’t know whether he went to the gate or not; I immediately turned around, on Wagner’s saying he would get Stampfli; nest heard afterward, that the Green C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. McKinney v. Davidson
286 S.W. 355 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1926)
Cousins v. Bowling
74 S.W. 168 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Benton County v. Morgan
64 S.W. 119 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
Davis v. McCann
44 S.W. 795 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Rogers & Baldwin Hardware Co. v. Cleveland Building Co.
31 L.R.A. 335 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 Mo. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-county-v-madden-mo-1887.