McMurray v. State Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

McMurray v. State Bank

74 Mo. App. 394, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 322

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 Mo. App. 394 (McMurray v. State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMurray v. State Bank, 74 Mo. App. 394, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 322 (Mo. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Gill, J.

— For reasons following, this appeal must be dismissed. This is a suit to enjoin a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust and to cancel the latter on the ground mainly that the debt had been paid. The defendant bank was made a party as the owner and holder of the alleged debt which had been sold and assigned to it by defendant Ensor. In addition to these the trustee named in the deed of trust, the sheriff of the county who was proceeding to advertise and sell the land on failure of the trustee to act, as also one William S. Wells, were made parties defendant.

On a trial below there was judgment for plaintiffs cancelling the debt and trust deed, and perpetually [395]*395enjoining the trustee and sheriff from proceeding with the sale.

As appears from the record William S. Wells alone appealed. And it also appears that said Wells has no interest in the litigation. He is an unnecessary party, nor is there any judgment against him — not even for costs, for they are specifically adjudged against 'the defendant State Bank of Savannah. In his affidavit for appeal (which is the only affidavit filed) said Wells does not pretend even to act as agent for or in behalf of other defendants, but assumes to file the affidavit on his own account and “because he considers himself aggrieved by the judgment and decision of the court.” Since, then, said appellant Wells was in no sense of the word aggrieved by the judgment in the case within the meaning of the statute (R. S. 1889, sec. 2246), his appeal will be dismissed.

All concur.

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

Gill, J.

— For reasons following, this appeal must be dismissed. This is a suit to enjoin a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust and to cancel the latter on the ground mainly that the debt had been paid. The defendant bank was made a party as the owner and holder of the alleged debt which had been sold and assigned to it by defendant Ensor. In addition to these the trustee named in the deed of trust, the sheriff of the county who was proceeding to advertise and sell the land on failure of the trustee to act, as also one William S. Wells, were made parties defendant.

On a trial below there was judgment for plaintiffs cancelling the debt and trust deed, and perpetually [395]*395enjoining the trustee and sheriff from proceeding with the sale.

As appears from the record William S. Wells alone appealed. And it also appears that said Wells has no interest in the litigation. He is an unnecessary party, nor is there any judgment against him — not even for costs, for they are specifically adjudged against 'the defendant State Bank of Savannah. In his affidavit for appeal (which is the only affidavit filed) said Wells does not pretend even to act as agent for or in behalf of other defendants, but assumes to file the affidavit on his own account and “because he considers himself aggrieved by the judgment and decision of the court.” Since, then, said appellant Wells was in no sense of the word aggrieved by the judgment in the case within the meaning of the statute (R. S. 1889, sec. 2246), his appeal will be dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Mo. App. 394, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmurray-v-state-bank-moctapp-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack