FANNIE DANIEL and C. G. DANIEL, JR., Executor of the Estate of C. G. DANIEL, SR., Deceased, v. J. E. MOLLETT, LESTER H. MCFARLING and ELSIE MCFARLING, His Wife, Appellants
No. 39320
Division Two
June 11, 1945
188 S. W. (2d) 54
For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. All concur.
Don C. Carter for appellants.
BOHLING, C.—Fannie Daniel and C. G. Daniel, Jr., as executor of the estate of C. G. Daniel, Sr., deceased, instituted this suit against J. E. Mollett, Lester H. McFarling and Elsie McFarling, his wife, to quiet title to 53 acres of land in Audrain county, Missouri; and to cancel a delinquent tax sale deed, and for damages. The court found for the plaintiffs, awarding damages on the basis of $2 per acre per annum until possession be restored. The real estate was sold under the Jones-Munger delinquent tax law (
Defendants claim the land should be valued at $750 on the ground there was testimony that plaintiffs had agreed to sell it for $750 if they won the suit. While this was before the court for consideration, there was other evidence putting the value of the land at $1325 and as high as $1590. The court‘s finding of a value “in excess
Several cases have observed the Jones-Munger act contemplates that the bid at a tax sale thereunder should be sufficient to pay the delinquent taxes, interest, and charges where the reasonable value of real estate is greater than that amount. Bussen Realty Co. v. Benson (Banc), 349 Mo. 58, 66[6], 159 S. W. 2d 813, 817 [5]; Mahurin v. Tucker (Mo.), 161 S. W. 2d 423 [1]; Heagerty v. Hawkins (Mo.), 173 S. W. 2d 923, 928 [7]. Consult
The trial court considered the bid of $205 to be so much less than the $430.10 taxes due and so grossly inadequate as to constitute in and of itself a fraud upon the plaintiffs and the State of Missouri. As stated there was evidence establishing a value up to $1590. Defendants argue that the bid of $205 constituted a greater percentage of the value than the bid in cases relied upon to set the sale aside. However, no authorities are cited establishing reversible error. State ex rel. v. Innes, 137 Mo. App. 420, 118 S. W. 1168, Goode, J., writing, considered a bid of less than one-fifth of the value of the property grossly inadequate. The instant record does not justify our upsetting the holding of the trial court in view of the public policy of the State as evidenced in the Jones-Munger act and the decisions construing it. Cases supra; Rudd v. Scott, 351 Mo. 1206, 175 S. W. 2d 774; and Annotation, 152 A. L. R. 889—Missouri cases. See also Ellis v. Powell (Mo.), 117 S. W. 2d 225; Lindsay v. St. Louis, 345 Mo. 1141, 1148, 139 S. W. 2d 906, 909.
The judgment is affirmed. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.
PER CURIAM:—The foregoing opinion by BOHLING, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur.
