Jones v. Paul
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Platte» POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The bill charges that the deed from Paul to Marshall is fraudulent and void, and at the same time admits it to be a mortgage, and prays to redeem. 2. It does not show any title in complainant: 1st. The sheriff’s deed is insufficient in not showing that the property was advertised for sale according to law, or that it was sold according to law. See Stat. 1835 p. 258, §38-’9-45. 2d.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Platte» POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The bill charges that the deed from Paul to Marshall is fraudulent and void, and at the same time admits it to be a mortgage, and prays to redeem. 2. It does not show any title in complainant: 1st. The sheriff’s deed is insufficient in not showing that the property was advertised for sale according to law, or that it was sold according to law. See Stat. 1835 p. 258, §38-’9-45. 2d. The judgment rendered by the justice is void, there being no service of process. Stat. 85 — title Justice’s Courts. 3d. There was no execution returned according to law,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
The complainant filed his bill on the' chancery side of the Platte circuit court, on the 26th August, 1844, against the defendants.
The bill states that Samuel Paul,, and Elmira Paul, his wife, on the 14th July, 1842, conveyed by deed to Frederick Marshall lot number 2, in block numbered 31, in Platte City, for the consideration of $110, as expressed in the deed. On the 10th October, 1843, the complainant obtained before a justice of the peace in Platte county, a judgment against the defendant Paul, for about $87, debt, interest and costs, upon which execution issued, which was returned…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Scott v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Bobb v. BobbMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880