This is аn appeal from a judgment for' defendant in an action in ejectment, instituted in the Louisiana Court of Cоmmon Pleas. In the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to state all the facts in detail, since plaintiff’s case depends upon the question whether a sale under a trust deed was valid or invalid.
Plaintiff’s husband, M. J. Hassler, and his brother, S. C. Hassler, formerly owned the land in suit and executed a deed of trust thereon to seсure a $5,000 note they gave to defendant. In this trust deed plaintiff joined with her husband. Subsequently the equity in the property was conveyed to a corporation whose capital stock was almost all owned by рlaintiff. A few shares were in her husband’s name and he was presi
Plaintiff contends thе trustee’s sale was and is a nullity because the name of S. O. Hassler, one of the grantors in the deed of trust, wаs omitted from the notice. Section 2843, Revised Statutes 190-9, requires that: “Such notice shall set forth the date аnd book and page of the record of such mortgage or deed off
The question is whether under the section the omission from the notice of sale of the name оf one of two grantors renders void the sale, all other requirements being met, the person whose name has been omitted having parted with his equity and the representative •of the owner of the entire equity bеing present at the sale, a full and fair price being obtained for the property, and the balance of the secured note afterward being paid so that the person whose name was omitted from the notice is no longer liable directly or indirectly for any sum by reason of his signature on the note seсured.
Ve have no hesitancy in saying the omission of S. C-. Hassler’s name from the notice in the circumstances in no way affects the validity of the trustee’s .sale and the full title passed thereby to McCune and by his deed nоw resides in defendant.
The principle necessitating this conclusion was substantially approved in Trust Co. v. Ellis, 258 Mо. l. c. 708 et seq. In that case the trustee’s notice of sale omitted to give the-book and page of the record of the trust deed, and this court held the facts of the case failed to show loss or injury on аccount of the omission and declared the sale valid.
In this case the owner of the equity, the cоrporation, was represented at the sale by its president; the public was advised sufficiently, since the book and page •of the record was given and a reference thereto disclosed the dеed of trust; full value was bid and paid for the property. S. C. Hassler no longer owned the equity and was in no wise injured by the sale, since he had no equity to protect, and since also the subsequent payment of the bаlance due on the notes entirely extinguished his obligation. In accordance with the rul
The trustee’s deed is criticised somewhat, hut an examination of it discloses it contains language apt to convey the entire title. Neither is there any substance in the suggestion that there should have been further evidence of the tipie during which the notice was published. The recitals in the trustee’s deed showed compliance with the statute and were not contradicted. This was sufficient. [Sec. 2858, R. S. 1909.].
The judgment is affirmed.