*1 gives a for which the law purpose, material for that purchase will provi- bring facts here the case within the lien. The mechanic’s 1929, providing that when Revised Statutes sions of Section to another on condition” property is “delivered personal agreed purchase price person when the pass to such other will deliverer, remain in the vendor or such paid, the title to meantime agreement is unless the is void as to creditors condition acknowledged, and recorded. writing, duly trial is affirmed. .of the The result is that Ferguson (7(7., Hyde, 0., foregoing opinion Sturgis,
PER CURIAM: The judges All of the opinion of the Ralph George Clevenger B. ; et al. et Odle al. v. Cerena Mary O. Crouse Andrew of Estates Crouse, Minors, Claude Crouse Crouse, Appel Estate Administrator 622. lants. 44 One, December
Division for appellants. L. E. Bates P. Hamilton and
A. Crowley respondents. Geo. W. E. A. Farris and situate of certain real estate FERGUSON, C. Suit for conventional petition, which is in County, Missouri. The alleges the form, August, 31st was filed on the plaintiff and interests of the out; is not real estate to be therein set that the land division in kind and asks that the land sold and be. plaintiffs according distributed inter- to their ests. Defendant answered, William H. Dale other defend- but the not controvert Dale’s answer does Defendant made default.
ants ishe avers admits and merely but petition, allegations of the *2 al- as is land in the interest an undivided one-fourth of the owner not do that the appears Thus it leged petition. the in to sought it which is of the real estate any issue as to title raise partition. County on Ray of Court Circuit in the was heard The cause that term of regular October during the October ad- decree, which interlocutory its entered court date the On that default; and finds in to be except Dale
judges all the defendants as set out to be in said land parties the of adjudicates the interests the Dale; that finds of and the answer petition in the great preju- in without of kind not property is according to sold that the land “be owners, to and orders the dice public vendue regular next term” of said “at law at the of County” notice by Ray of cash, publication the Sheriff of after that directs then The decree directed. therein manner in the sale costs be divided payment of sale after of the net the to proportion “according to and and defendants plaintiffs the exceptions No forth.” interests, above set as herein respective their noted, objections any kind made or of preserved, nor were taken entered, so where- interlocutory decree by any to the parties, of the no thereby, so that and are bound parties all the became herein, decree, interlocutory appellants from nor have the lies this questioned presently appear, as will that decree. term, February being court, the of said regular term next At the of sale” report “a 14th, sheriff’s February the on 1929, and in, manner to, in the and pursuant reporting that
filed, the interlocutory of decree in the of sale order of “for the sum therein named land had been sold to twenty-five signed, of report hundred dollars.” This sale was County.” “Frank Williams, report Ex-Sheriff of of sale shows the by sale to Williams, have been made Frank former sheriff of county, whose term expired year of office had with the February 18th, 1929, an order and of the court was made and entered of record as follows: day February, parties by
“Now on this 18th come the agreement respective attorneys, their and of all parties the ex- Report sheriff’s of Sale of real estate described the Order of Sale, by consent, is taken up and court; submitted to the and the court, having being heard fully and satisfied that report the said is just and correct, objections no approval to being thereof made, adjudged by it ordered and Report the court that said things in all hereby Sale be said sale approved, be con- ex-sheriff forever, and the effectual firm and as held firmed, and pur- to the proper deed a and deliver to execute ordered ordered is further ex-sheriff sold, and said property chasers the costs and sale, paying after proceeds of to distribute ac- in interest thereof to proceeding, of this expenses judgment of according rights to cording their Report final ex-sheriff’s await the continued to cause is court, and this partition.” of Sale Ralph B. defendants 1929, the day February, 20th On the Crouse, Mary O. Andrew the estates of Adminis- Crouse, minors, and Crouse deceased, and one of the estate of trator joint motion to set Crouse, filed a Inyard Claude plaintiffs, of the 1929, approving the February 18, judgment of the said aside ordered, new sale a disaffirmed and that the sale be and asked they what denominate parties filed same on the same *3 motions February 26, 1929, both judgment. motion arrest of motions, joined in said parties, who had ánd the were overruled granted to this was appeal appeal. thereupon filed affidavit by the former Appellants’ sole contention is that court. was not a valid sheriff sale. theory granted court on the Evidently to this jurisdiction and action, gives this court form of the however, think, necessarily involved. We to real estate is which we made demonstrates the statement the case have give sense so as to title is not involved in constitutional directly jurisdiction. in issue. No title was not Title real estate adjudicated by court. controversy was made contested, called dispute. nor in The court was not Title was not “adversely to not, adjudicate or title upon to, and did determine litigant litigant “take from one one favor of another” or title McGaughey, give it to See Bank v. Estate of another.” Nettleton Rawlings Rawlings (Mo. Sup.), 2 (2d) 771; 318 Mo. S. W. v. (Mo. (2d) Co. 367; 39 v. St. Union Brockman Louis Trust Sup.), (Mo. (2d) Sup.), 38 W. 1010: v. Kaufmann S. Kaufmann McCracken, 555; (2d) 39 S. W. (2d) 40 W. Hull v. 327 Mo. S. 351; Devoto, (2d) 805; 511, 31 S. W. v. v. 326 Mo. Weil Devoto Richardson, Mo. 7 S. W. 320 jurisdiction grounds appellate None our record, appearing Section of Article of the Constitution City Appeals. Court of the cause be transferred to the Kansas should Sturgis Hyde, CC., It is so ordered. opinion by Ferguson, C.,
PER foregoing CURIAM: The "judges All of opinion