Kitchen v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The sale of the North Missouri Railroad under the second mortgage was illegal, for the following reasons : Humphreys and Yail, the trustees making the sale, were purchasers. A trustee in a deed of trust executed to secure a debt of auy kind, cannot purchase at his own sale. “ A total disability is enjoined to take away all temptation.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The sale of the North Missouri Railroad under the second mortgage was illegal, for the following reasons : Humphreys and Yail, the trustees making the sale, were purchasers. A trustee in a deed of trust executed to secure a debt of auy kind, cannot purchase at his own sale. “ A total disability is enjoined to take away all temptation.” Grumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Thornton v. Irwin, 48 Mo. 153; Reddick v. Gressman, 49 Mo. 389; McNees v. Swaney, 50 Mo. 388; Benham v. Rowe, 2 Cal. 387; Hull v. Voorhis, 45 Mo. 555; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 537; Wormley v.…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This cause was tried at the December term, *2381874, of the St. Louis circuit court, resulting in the dismissal of complainants’ hill and judgment for defendants. This judgment, on appeal to the general term, was affirmed, from which plaintiffs prosecute their appeal to this court.
The St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Com: pany claim to have acquired title to all the property of the North Missouri Railroad Company, by virtue of a sale made by Humphreys and Vail, on the 26th day of August, 1871, as trustees, in what is called in the petition a second mortgage, and also by virtue of a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. MarburySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Jackson v. LudelingSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Buell v. Buckingham & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Seth v. CramerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court · 1859
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Colton v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Tenison v. PattonTexas Supreme Court · 1902
- Roan v. WinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Foster v. Mullanphy Planing Mill Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Holmes v. . WillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.