Lustenberger v. Sarkesian

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

It is contended in the motion that we overlooked certain raised points and propositions. [7] It is said that we overlooked the proposition "that there was no evidence that W.F. Lustenberger did not directly or through H.S. Smith Investment Company request the trustee to foreclose the deed of trust." Section 3094, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 3094, p. 1918), makes prima facie true the recital, in the trustee's deed to the Purdys, that the legal holder of the Gardner note had requested foreclosure. Hence it is argued that the burden being on plaintiffs the…