125 Mo. 108 | Mo. | 1894
This action is ejectment for one hundred and twenty acres of land in Bollinger county. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried by the court without a jury. The plaintiff had judgment below and the defendant appeals.
On the third day of August, 1887, the defendant, D. J. Pullam, by deed of trust in common form, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, conveyed the
On the trial the defendants admitted possession, D. J. Pullam claiming as owner, the other defendant, George Pullam, as tenant. The plaintiff to show title, introduced the deed of trust in evidence, and a deed in proper form from John Husky, sheriff of said county, dated June 20, 1891, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, showing by its recitals the refusal of the trustee named in the deed to act, a sale by said sheriff at the requst of the legal holder of the note, in strict compliance with the terms of the deed and the receipt of the purchase money, conveying said premises in
The defendants to defeat this title offered to prove:
“a. That Robert Statler, the trustee in the deed of trust, is alive.
ub. That John Bollinger, the party of the third part in said deed of trust, is dead.
“c. That Henry A. Heitman, William Bollinger and David Robinson are administrators of the estate of said John Bollinger, deceased, appointed by the probate court of Bollinger county.
11 cl. That the note secured by the deed of trust, under which the sale was made, came into the hands of said administrators as part of the assets of the estate of John Bollinger, deceased, and was inventoried as such.
“e. That said administrators, as such, assigned the said note and deed of trust to plaintiff, who thereby acquired it. That he paid them the full amount due on the note, both principal and interest, for it, which amounted to $310.67, and in consideration of which sum they assigned it to plaintiff.
“/. That such assignment was not made to plaintiff in discharge of any claim due him by said estate, either as creditor, legatee, distributee or otherwise.
ug. That the advertisement and sale under deed of trust by the sheriff, under which plaintiff claims title, was made after the assignment of said note and deed of trust to him, by said administrators, and made at his (plaintiff’s) request as the holder of the note.”
To the admission of this evidence the plaintiff objected and the court sustained the objection, and the defendants making no further defense, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.
The gist of appellant’s contention is, that the sale was not made at the request of the legal holder of the
Consequently the court committed no error in refusing to admit the evidence offered, and in holding that those facts constituted no defense to this action.
The judgment is affirmed.