*1 1231' argument is that Appellant’s doubt. beyond reasonable guilty lant suffice if doubt’ criterion” should not ‘beyond a reasonable “this He contends instructions wholly circumstantial. evidence embody circumstantial evidence as stated rule on and two one must be read as a whole and when three. Instructions in instruction they fairly jury informed the were so read these instructions contention. There is no merit law of this case. these two instructions are erroneous be- contends that upon the and assume they improper an comment evidence are
cause
jury to find. These instructions did
be left for the
facts that should
strike,
“did
jury
find that
and wound
require
beat
deadly
dangerous
weapon,
Fulton, with a
one Thomas
such
case,”
introduced in evidence
but
pipe
of iron
piece
upon
phrase
that this
is' not
comment
the evi-
are of the
jury.
facts that should be left to the
does not assume
In
dence and
Dunn, 221 Mo.
Collector Purchaser, v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with De Brant, 3-2170, Parcel Owner, linquent Liens, Flaugh, C. L. Tax (2d) 40520. 212 S. W. Appellant. No. Two, July 12, 1948. Division appellant. *2 .Rufus.Bums George Aylward Johnson and V.
Nelson E. for respondent. County [746] Collector of Jackson WESTHUES, C. This is a County, Missouri, proceeding to foreclose tax liens instituted by by as authorized the Land Tax page Laws Among parcels of land included in this suit were lots 546 and (Resurvey 283), Fairmount of lot County, Jackson Missouri. As to lot the trial court not approve did the salé and lot only bearing has an indirect on the issues in this Explanation ease. opinion. will be later in Appellant, Flaugh, C. L. owner lots, of the did not appear proceedings question until the presented confirmation foreclosure sales was to the trial court. He then filed motion which reads as follows: Flaugh, L. “Comes now C. and states to the Court that on the 11th day March, 1947, sale was held under and virtue an order the property of this wherein Court described the above serial Suit number Land Trust and more particularly described *3 follows, as to-wit: 547, (Resurvey
“Lot 283) FAIRMOUNT of Lot was offered for sale. “Your movant further-states bidding that there was no at'said for above except' sale the described tract by that bid E. William $158.51, your Brant for the sum of which sum represents movant and grossly inadequate. Court states to the is Your Movant further states property reasonably the that said to Court is worth the sum of $400.00. [747] “WHEREFORE, your movant prays the Court for an order disaffirming permit said sale so as to the movant herein to .redeem pay against to said have said lands and taxes that now accrued said property.” evidence, court, hearing found
The trial value of 547 after the lot and if the bidder would raise his to indicated that bid $500.00 be to approved. the be He did so and the amount sale would sale that fully justified as to the value the lot The evidence confirmed. was by be trial court. It will noted that the finding as made the value the by $100.00 was more than the in fixed the court amount stated as placed The court $1500 motion. value of on lot landowner’s the sale, purchaser person at the same The who had 546. number the. 547, to raise his bid on this lot the refused so sale was in lot bid. confirming Flaugh the From the order sale to lot 547 disaffirmed. . appealed. . reads in the brief as follows: point first foreclosing rights the of landowner is void and bidder “Judgment (cid:127) , therein described. right to lands no
obtained Mo., R. S. 11165, “Sec. 1042.”
Sec, 1943, p. 20,.Laws argument in his brief from and the We learn sections appellant petition that claims the fatally cited de- statute of .the that the statute it limitations had run because fective .discloses .of 1234 years lor 1933 1939 inclusive. It is that
against the to obvious taxes years' Liens for taxes for cannot be sustained. the this contention sought to be were foreclosed. The was 1944 inclusive suit 1933 to years due for 1945. Taxes the to September 1944 filed on years 11165, supra, five therefore even if See. the were within con-, petition not be There the would void. was no applicable were or by hearing any motion the appellant made his at that tention Examining statute of limitations. because were barred taxes tax bill attached as an exhibit are find a on which petition we n years as to due following notations the taxes for the 1933 to. 1936 inclusive: By and Page, Year, No. Book 21.05; 7-3149; Tract Tax “Suit 1936.” following years appears for the for which taxes were
The same year. A suit number indicated for each In be due. claimed to ‘‘ find indicating costs accrued we an item for Clerks Fees” the column any contrary showing for “Suits Release.” Without fees and also petition hold point must indicates on the or evidence years filed been for taxes had now claimed to and1 suits shows is, petition Our conclusion that the does limitations. be barred against of limitations has run any statute that the not disclose ruling In view of sought foreclosed. to be it will not be tax liens question presented by respondent necessary pass upon as to the statute of pleading the limitations. necessity says offer, his sale, after the foreclosure by paying all taxes and costs land should his have been to redeem evidently The trial court. by the trial followed the accepted Tax the Land prescribed supra, procedure *4 provides 28 of act. Sec. and that 16 16 in substance Sec’s. particular any may in the land having interest redeem any person the same that and costs n “. all due sums any collector . to the . at by paying the foreclosure sale of such of the time real estate to prior time provides if further that such The section redemption the sheriff.” person the sale such shall be to prior any barred of not is 28 prescribes in the land. Sec. procedure or interest the title further of sales. It non-confirmation or authorizes the trial for confirmation value of the as to the land. If the evidence court finds hear to court inadequate it is authorized to have purchaser to be the price the sale an may amount the court such bid to deem his to be increase at raises the'sale his bid to such purchaser an If the amount adequate. If he declines to do so the may be confirmed. sale shall be sale the of in violation disapproved. 1945, the United that is, that of says States'and Amendment Sec. it is 28, taking property I, Art. supra, XIV, Sec. Sec. is unconstitutional 10, 1, of without due of thé the Missouri [748] Constitution and void, process Constitution, law. of being
1235 question adversely was contention This decided to Hatten, 94, Spitcaufsky court in v. 160 A. L. R. 353 Mo. 182 S. (2d) (3, 4). l. A in W. c. 102 few observations line with what Spitcaufsky may essential, be It is was said in the case not amiss. indispensable, government in fact to the maintenance of that taxes questioned. It like power be This of the state is not is collected. necessary for and efficient collection of taxes that wise the effective proceedings foreclosure be authorized. While the landowner should every safeguard preserve property (61 given protection be and to his 1514), that sales should be so con J. Sec. it is also essential C. enures to the benefit of the ducted as to attract bidders. This state and landowners. The Land Tax now under also the fully consideration, ample provisions protecting our has may any stage property owner’s'rights. Land be redeemed at of the had, 28, supra, been proceedings until sale has thereafter Sec. the hearing shall be had to determine whether the amount provides that certainly adquate. That is for the benefit'of the landowner. bid is require may, inadequate, purchaser if the to The court the bid is adequate disapprove amount deemed or the sale. raise his bid to the legislature, benefit of the landowner. The undoubt That too is the sales, edly encourage bidding at tax has that the suc provided to purchase willing if he is shall have the benefit of his cessful bidder adequate by property the trial court. The pay price deemed adequate property he an thereby loses title to his but receives owner rights process his constitutional of due We hold that consideration. right purely of violated. The law have not been redemption may right. curtail such statutory legislature and the C. J. Sec. 1686. contends that the trial court should have con
Appellant next purchaser lots; take both condition that the the Sale on firmed the sale as to both lots. This have disaffirmed refused it should if he theory upon that the were is based lots contention together peculiar because of their sold location. value when of more court. The trial in its presented to the trial court This matter appellant’s favor, however, on have ruled in could discretion justified disturbing are not the orders made. presented evidence were, by the trial court in view of the on the lots placed values The property owner. liberally in favor of the The record evidence, rather carefully protected rights land indicates owner. Barrett, BohUng GO-, concur. is affirmed. judgment *5 by Westhues, foregoing opinion C., is PER CURIAM: The Leedy Ellison, JJ., concur; of the court. adopted sitting. not J., P. Tipton,