Perkins v. Woods
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Lincoln Circuit Court. I. The heir was a necessary party. The foreclosure in no way affected the right of the heir to redeem. The demurrer was improperly sustained. (7 Mo. 374; 1 Powell on Mortg. 282; 7 Cranch, 69 ; 2 Gfallis. 371; 2 Mason, 181; 11 Wheat. 103 ; id. 304; 1 Stark, on Ev. 191; 2 N. H. 190; 1 Wheat. 6; 1 Munf. 373 ; 2 H. & Munf. 139 ; 14 Johns. 79; 4 Day, 431; 2 Sto. Eq. § 1026 ; 2 Hare, 237 ; 1 Black.
Read the full summary
Error to Lincoln Circuit Court. I. The heir was a necessary party. The foreclosure in no way affected the right of the heir to redeem. The demurrer was improperly sustained. (7 Mo. 374; 1 Powell on Mortg. 282; 7 Cranch, 69 ; 2 Gfallis. 371; 2 Mason, 181; 11 Wheat. 103 ; id. 304; 1 Stark, on Ev. 191; 2 N. H. 190; 1 Wheat. 6; 1 Munf. 373 ; 2 H. & Munf. 139 ; 14 Johns. 79; 4 Day, 431; 2 Sto. Eq. § 1026 ; 2 Hare, 237 ; 1 Black. Comm. 89, 90.) The present case can be distinguished from that of McCord’s Adm’r v. Riley’s Adm’r, 21 Mo. 285. I. The heir of the mortgagor was not a necessary party. (1…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This was a proceeding by the heir of a mortgagor to redeem the land mortgaged. A foreclosure had been obtained in a suit by the mortgagee against the administrator of the mortgagor; and the plaintiff, not having been a party to that proceeding, claims that her interest was not sold. A demurrer was filed and sustained, and the only question is whether *548the heir is a necessary party to a foreclosure of a mortgage. The point was expressly decided in Riley’s Adm’r v. McCord’s Adm’r, 21 Mo. 285. Before the revised code of 1845, a mortgage could not be foreclosed without making the heirs of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Riley's Administrator v. McCord's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- Woolfolk v. Bank of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Tierney v. SpivaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888