Bates v. Miller
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Sixth District Court. I. Maupin & King proved conclusively, and the court in its decision admits the fact, that the debt which Bates claimed to be assigned was fully paid and extinguished; and further, that the sheriff’s deed, regular and formal on its face, was prima facie evidence of title in Maupin & King. II. The sheriff’s deed, perfectly regular and formal on its face, shows a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute.
Read the full summary
Error to Sixth District Court. I. Maupin & King proved conclusively, and the court in its decision admits the fact, that the debt which Bates claimed to be assigned was fully paid and extinguished; and further, that the sheriff’s deed, regular and formal on its face, was prima facie evidence of title in Maupin & King. II. The sheriff’s deed, perfectly regular and formal on its face, shows a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute. Could its validity and correctness be thus collaterally questioned? (Landis v. Perkins, 12 Mo. 238 ; Reid v. Heirs of Austin, 9 Mo. 722.) These…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff files his petition to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant Miller. Maupin & King, upon their own motion, are made parties, and answer, setting out their interest in the premises as purchasers at sheriff’s sale, and alleging a satisfaction of the mortgage. Miller makes default. The reply denies the interest of Maupin & King and denies satisfaction. Upon the trial the default was taken as to Miller, and Maupin & King offered the sheriff’s deed to show their interest, and also evidence *411to show the satisfaction; and the plaintiff, to rebut, showed that the execution sale at…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Maupin v. EmmonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Wall v. NaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wood v. AugustineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Stevenson v. Atlantic & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1919