Conway v. Nolte
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas The sheriff was entitled to judgment on the motion,— 1. Because the sale was advertised between the hours of 9 and 5 o’clock, for cash, and the defendantbidding under it, failed to pay or offer to pay on the day of sale.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas The sheriff was entitled to judgment on the motion,— 1. Because the sale was advertised between the hours of 9 and 5 o’clock, for cash, and the defendantbidding under it, failed to pay or offer to pay on the day of sale. See R. C. 1845, p. 483, sec. 42. 2. The statute is mandatory, and the officer was bound to sell for cash between the hours specified in the advertisement, and the defendant knew the terms of sale. 3. The defendant contends that no deed was ready for the defendant. He came not on the day of sale. Besides, the officer is bound to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was a motion by Conway, the sheriff of St. Louis county, against Nolte, for refusing to pay for property purchased by him at a sale made by the sheriff. Conway having several executions against Mead & Beak-. man, levied them upon a leasehold estate belonging to the said defendants, which being advertised according to law, was sold at 12 o’clock ón the day appointed for the sale, when Charles Nolte became the purchaser, for the sum of $230. The money was required to be paid by five o’clock of the day of sale, as the officer thinks. Nolte not paying it, at a few minutes before five, the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Davis v. McCannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Rogers & Baldwin Hardware Co. v. Cleveland Building Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Shaw v. PotterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- State ex rel. Central Type Foundry v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Phillips v. GoldmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.