McClurg v. Dollarhide
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Hickory Circuit Court. I. The law is well settled that where, by a regular judgment and execution, the sheriff is invested with the power to séll, any irregularity in selling on a day different from that directed by law for selling, and even without the proper notice, does not affect the title of a bona fide purchaser.
Read the full summary
Error to Hickory Circuit Court. I. The law is well settled that where, by a regular judgment and execution, the sheriff is invested with the power to séll, any irregularity in selling on a day different from that directed by law for selling, and even without the proper notice, does not affect the title of a bona fide purchaser. It is sufficient for the purchaser that the sheriff had authority to sell, and did sell, and executed a deed; all other questions are between the parties to the judgment and the officer. (Draper vs. Bryson, 17 Mo., 86 ; Lawrence vs. Speed, 2 Bibb., 401 ; Webber & Stith…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was ejectment for land situated in Hickory County. Both parties claimed title under Alfred and W. D. Foster.
The plaintiff rested his case on a Sheriff’s deed.
The defendant then offered a Sheriff’s deed for the same premises, made under an execution issued from the County Court upon a judgment of the County Court, given for the principal and interest of a School debt under the statute of 1855, which was excluded because the sale appeared to have been made at the County Court and in vacation of the Circuit Court. The exclusion of this deed is the only point raised by this record.
Whilst it…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wilcoxon v. OsbornSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Mabary v. DollarhideSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Roberts v. NelsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Mobley v. NaveSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Gunby v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.