*1 MISSOURI, SUPREME COURT OF Signal Automatic Switch Go. v. Trust Co. App. controlling v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 351, are respect question contributory facts of this with to the negligence. wholly But those cases are unlike the one at bar on the facts, unless one isolated of evidence hit in the latter, inconsistent with the other evidence in the portray case, he held to the real facts. One of defend- ant’s witnesses testified stated that be- he that pulley lieved the on the lower end the boom would leg—pass clear his over it—and that would, there- leg plain- fore, he safe one over the with and' I-beam, expressly deny having tiff not, did rebuttal, made the statement. But the substance the statement was plaintiff’s testimony effect contradicted touch- ing phase jury and it the case say, from all the what evidence the true facts were. finding
We concur the trial court’s under the first as no count, and reversible error in connection with the jury pointed trial to the under count been the second has out, the be affirmed. should It is so ordered. Small, C., ab- concurs; Brown, G., sent. foregoing opinion RaglaND,
PER CURIAM:—The adopted All C., is as the of the court. judges concur. & SIGNAL
HURST SWITCH COM AUTOMATIC Appellants, v. TRUST HURST, PANY and FRED COUNTY, COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS STONE WALTON, J. WALL REBECCA WALTON, A. HOLLOCHER. and F. J. GEORGE BODE One,
Division December Judgment: Accounting. 1. APPEAL: Final Supreme Where Court adjudged had on a former that a trust had been wrongfully foreclosed, the holder pur- *2 reasonable time grant a to the ties and to to by sum found upon him of a the property the .redeem mortgagor filed upon return of the ease justly duo, a the and rents, accounting, dam- for statement for petition or an therein a nothing under adjudging he etc., that take decree waste, ages, a. note against the accounting the holder of for an his accounting no all he at trustee, is entitled to and that the and he the until redeems unless and purchaser defendant the against mortgagee, a the was amount found due by paying the property conditional, Although appeal lies. from which an decree, final accounting no entitled to that was final deeree was a redemption prop- he purchaser until made the defendant a im- might do, and condition not he never which erty, which Supreme the Court. posed by the directions of Subsequent judgment -: Orders. Where -: Reversal: a 2. to cause remanded equity has been reversed and the in an suit appellate a judgment 'of the court was accounting, the take an by all made in the case the judgment, orders thereafter final and judgment in the final the cause” trial after court are “orders (Sec. 2038, 191&), S. meaning of the statute R. from the within appeals lie. which Subsequent Directions: Con- JUDGMENT: With REVERSAL OP by mortgagor to set ditions. Where a suit aside a trustee’s the deed, Supreme has his the under a of tfhst and Court sale deed relief, denying and has remanded the judgment reversed a trus- aside trustee’s sale and the with directions to set cause purchaser, to an between the to the take tee’s deed parties, redemption grant the a time for the to reasonable and payment by plaintiff justly sum property upon found due plain- requiring trial erred first purpose, for that the the mortgagee on the notes and pay the amount due secured tiff to the canceling setting to and the trustee’s deed redeem before aside sale. Wrongful Accounting: OF Restitution: DEED Things TRUST: Foreclosure: Supreme adjudged has a Included. the Court Where foreclosed, wrongfully ruled that deed of and has the things mortgagor “should be restored to all lost reason of the judgment” upholding foreclosure, of the circuit court has reversed said the cause with direc- remanded deed, sale take account- tions to set aside the trustee’s an ing grant parties, and a reasonable the between the time for redemption property mortgagor the the the payment MISSOURI, OF COURT SUPREME Co. Trust Co. Automatic Switch re- mortgagor to he the is entitled purpose, for just sum judg- reversed things by him, reason the lost to all stored pur- innocent parties or to third ment, the defendants (a) them, including the restoration chasers pending litigation, and to possession deprived he was of whose (e) damage waste done (b) value; rental an damaged during including crops or converted property, to the expenses which litigation; (d) taxable costs and satisfy paid and costs of paid; (e) amount brought by unlaw- purchaser unlawful detainer suit purchaser suit, ful obtained foreclosure which mortgagor, or the possession, paid whether tenant bonds- his them); paid by (for sureties, however, if men benefit of the bad!; moving prop- (f) expense from and to the away the direct erty (g) retain eviction; reason of his from the time in which to redeem the reasonable money paid mortgagor But trust. not entitled to recover attorneys expense litigation to his or other about *3 statute, spec- not under the he recover are taxable as costs nor can damages, expense living doing ulative as the extra of or busi- by possession property. being
ness evicted Brought: -:-:-:-: Where Full Belief. Where 5. adjudged given by plaintiff the court that of has deed trust a wrongfully things foreclosed and that he restored all directed be to thereby, may by case, his in lost restitution obtained motion be the separate therefor, relief, and no or new suit need be filed but full ineluding accounting any an for items loss the by of caused of may therein, defendants or privies, by their be had motion and due notice. Liability Mortgagee: -:
6. -: -: --—: Co-Con- spirator. If mortgage holder of the purchases the un- notes the lawful foreclosure sale under deed of trust thereafter is the is, in accounting, chargeable he in rents, with while possession, if so notes; allowed interest on the but if did not purchase the and has never possession, been in and has waste, not committed posses- and has no in the interest or title sion purchaser, claimed the he is not liable to account for rents profits waste, although or or party, he was purchaser, with the to conspiracy wrongful the brought which about the and unlawful sale. Kedemption: 7. -: -: Paid Purchaser to Interest Mort- gagee. Where the wrongfully deed trust foreclosed, purchaser the part obtained money the with which to make purchase the executing mortgagee his the note to and subse- TERM, V. Co. Co. Switch & Trust Hurst Automatic adjudged being mortgagor, quently paid thereon, interest on the deed right- property from the the redeem the restitution and to pay full amount to the trust, required, redeem, is still order to of interest for upon mortgage notes; the amount interest the accounting mortgagee paid a matter of purchaser the is the to legally interested. them, mortgagor not between is the Wrong- Mortgage --: —--: Notes After Interest Sale: foreclosure sale under the deed ful Where the Tender. is wrongful deed adjudged is to and the trustee’s trust have been mort- aside, to be and the set and an is-directed taken redemption of the gagor granted for time a reasonable justly due found sum to after'the purpose, holder is entitled to interest notes hearing pro- wrongful in the sale to date of the or within ceeding, mortgagor unless the date of the sale proper pay *4 right aside, set the mortgagor granted and the redeem and to mortgagor taken, by filing is directed to the may, proper giving thereof, any person motion and due notice make party purchased to sueh accounting possession who or was in property, profits or received use and benefit rents and thereof, or thereon, committed and who innocent waste was not an purchaser thereof, original at any mortgagor’s suit time after the adjudged have the sale invalid was instituted. EQUITY: Scope 11. equity, possession Belief. A court of onee in jurisdiction having relinquish parties, the res and will not complete justice adequate its until it has hold and to all done
parties. 58 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, Automatic Switch & Co. v. Trust Oo. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. A.Hon. G.Wur Judge.
deman, (with directions). Reversed appellants. W. W. Collide for (1) provides The decree of court conveying- trustee’s sale plain and his thereunder, tiff’s to defendant Walton’s deed are null and void, the mandate directs that plaintiffs things judgment be restored to all lost erroneously the trial court. The trial court refused judgment accordingly erroneously to enter refused judgment restoring plaintiffs to enter original judgment to what lost in the cause. By judgement Keltner v. 204 Harris, S. W. plaintiffs trial court lost land and profits lost the trial issues rents, thereof, restoring plaintiffs judg in not erred in its accounting. (2) rights ment on the premises profits restitution of value of rents, damages fixed the trial are established the. of reversal. The reversal completely appellant nullifies the and restores occupied to the status he before it rendered, and he is judgment. entitled a restitution what he has lost Crispen
Colburn v. 176 Yantis, v. 670.; Mo. Hannoven, 160; 86 Mo. v. Hart, 60 Mo. 362; Jones St. Ry. Suggett, Joe Co. v. 43 Mo. Brown, 294; Carson v. Pope, 364; Mo. v. Chouteau 74 Mo. Connor v. Allen, 56; App. (3) 23 Mo. Tourvill 344; Mo. Riailroad, purchaser. Defendant was not an innocent William partner, purchased Sheer, Walton’s who controversy pendens purchaser. from him, was a lis All pending defendants had notice of the of this cause making trial in this court, them liable to under said mandate of this The trial court. *5 59 1921. TERM, Signal v. & Co. Trust Co. Hurst Automatic Switch judgment entering up on it did tlie court erred y. Ins.Mo. accounting. Mo. 416; 210 Edmonston, Turner (4) By man 860. 214 Russ, Co.' S. W. v. entry proper date of judgment court an not These directions were is directed. thereon v. Harris, Keltner trial court. the learned followed (5) refused Defendant trust 561. S. W. 204 prior to fore accept the notes of amount due on tender the interest entitled to not closure ; therefore, accounting. gives it on the trial Staggs, 601; Miller v. 586, Mo. Schaffer, Potter v. 209 (6) under entitled Plaintiffs were 266 457. Mo. offer evidence court to mandate of this
decree and
tending to show value
of account
trial
said statement
damages
profits,
them ad
have
Araste
rents,
accounting.
Staggs,
judged
Miller
v.
their favor
“He
209 Mo.
who
Schaffer,
Potter v.
Joseph
Trust
G. McAtee
prematurely
(1)
taken
al-
This
in-
rendered
that the
reason
lowed,
terlocutory
(2)
A
R. S. 1919.
not
final. Sec.
dispose
of all
which does
Wright,
judgment.
135 Mo.
final
Deck
is not a
cause
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
Automatic Switch.
Oo. v. Trust Co.
*6
App-.
App.
536; Crowe
124
A
Crowe,
v.
Mo.
120.
final
judgment
appear
party
must
to be in favor of one
purport
the other.
It must
to be the actual and
distinguished
absolute sentence of the law
from a mere
finding
parties
judgment.
that one of the
is entitled to a
Judgments,
Black on
sec.
v.
State
54 Mo.
3;
Sutterfield,
Tracy,
394; Railroad v.
94
Railroad, Mo.
Stickler
542;
v.
upon
judgment, thought
59 Mo.
55;
v.
Rannells
96
Young Young,
Mo.
(3)
226;
v.
Mo. 492;
v.
125 Mo.
Mitchell,
217; Kline v.
Yogel,
Stonetuall Walton for J. Stonewall J. Walton and Rebecca L. Walton.
(1) Except specified by ap- in the cases an statute peal only judgment. lie will from a final R. S. sec. 1919, TERM, 1921. .Oi Switch & Oo. v. Trust Oo. Automatic interlocutory appeal (2) 1469. an An not lie does judgment. judgment one This if is true even is Halloway authority v. the court is to enter. A without Halloway, (3) final is the 97 Mo. 641. 628, right parties in an action. determination R, App. Wright, 1521; S. sec. Deck 135 Mo. v. 1919, (4) entry A authorize final so as to parties appeal disposition as to all it makes unless some dispose (5) must to the record. final One v. case. Dixon all the issues and all App. R. 646, 648; Louis S. St. sec. Transit 197 Mo. Co., City 193 Mo. Baker 1528; Barmon, 327; Cramer v. (6) premature Mo. Louis, St. *7 judgment final was because no and should be dismissed Gould, 260 rendered. Koeln v. Mo. George respondent, A. Bode. R. for
Julius Nolle (1) cannot be cause of action A and different new Clothing original. Steidman, Co. v. for the substituted party Respondent App. (2) not a Bode Mo. was any finding value the and as to to the unlawful detainer monthly evidence in that suit etc., of rents, Respondent binding (3) Bode is entitled him. by jury be held day before can in court trial to a and by ap- damages. (4) of account filed The statement pleaded departure cause action pellants from the of is a misjoinder petition; original a it creates be determined issues cannot that the an extent no (5) committed parties. trial The the between respondent decreeing Bode have that in error appellant appellant take the account filed on nothing thereunder. has case time is the second this
SMALL, C.This equity, petition filed was before court. been this a trustee’s sale April aside set cancel 8,1914, February 1914, and made certain deed of lands (which was trust property the- deed redeem owner) Massey prior under which a executed Mrs. SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, Hurst Automatic Switch & Oo. v. Trust Oo. plaintiff company sale was made. The was the owner property, subject to the trust; deed of Fred was its tenant; the defendant trust was the trustee named in said trust and owner thereby; note secured defendant Bode was the designated County, Sheriff of St. Louis who was deed, trust to act as trustee in absence tbe or refusal company; to act of the trust defendant Stonewall J. Wal- purchaser, ton was at the $17,605, foreclosure sale made defendant as Bode, substitute sheriff, original trustee. On the trial of case circuit the court defendants, rendered for the but court we reversed the [216 remanded the with case directions. W. 954.] S. charge' There was that the sold sheriff an in- as trustee, adequate price after lawful tender of the amount due on the note and that secured, “the defendants and all said agreed conspired together of them had to force pretended property by sale of Bode, said said purpose unlawfully acquiring for the aforesaid, title price of the same at a much less than the worth, and the said refusal in the manner and form aforesaid pretended property by sale the said the said Bode pursuant as aforesaid were dictated and made to the agreement conspiracy- unlawful terms same *8 aforesaid.” opinion
An examination of the of this court will show finding any wrong-doing no evidence or intentional of on part the of the defendant sheriff, and that he acted as good substitute trustee in on faith the written refusal of finding the any to act nor such; is there as payment that tender of the note or of trust was made sale before thereunder. But the court agreement did find that there whs an between the trust discourage bidding and Walton at the pur- trustee’s sale and that Walton should become the following language chaser. The court the uses in con- cluding reversing remanding and its the TERM, Switch & Co. Trust Co. Automatic mind doubt case: “The evidence leaves no whole was price land sold of this that the the at which inadequate to the at least of and that $12,395, extent deprive inadequacy, operated to the or much of as so protect plaintiff corporation power own its equity defend- redemption, the action of was caused suppress bidding; tending the fact ant that Walton plaintiff corporation its that had received unfairly certificate to transact this State was business saving prop- purpose disabling it from used for the erty sale and that the held, until the could be sale conditions. to these the trustee with reference hurried other than left these no choice is us Under circumstances Uouis the Circuit Court St. to reverse the decree of County, enter directions to with cause, and remand the n setting proper trustee aside its decree form executed to secure $13,000 sale and the deed of trust day, for an and wife same Walton parties, granting time such reasonable between the proper just re- for the shall as to the court demption seem plaintiffs property upon purpose, justly for that due of the found be sum accordingly done.” is purchased trustee’s
After Walton against plain- brought in unlawful detainer sale he suit company, tiff Fred tenant Hurst, property. Also judgment judgment obtained on his or the sureties from him collected bond There also thereof. for unlawful detention suggestion or transferred sold Walton pendente lite. effect, to the form in the usual
Our mandate was restored things, “should among other judgment” reversed. things reason lost to all Upon the case to circuit return of January statement 1920', filed, damages profits, for rents in the case, crops and costs property, conversion and waste to attorneys’ including fees litigation, expenses litigation not taxable expenses and costs other *9 SUPREME COUNT MISSOURI, OF Hurst Automatic Switch Co. v. Trust Co. costs. There also claim a for on account of $929.26 moneys paid in ont satisfaction of the defend- against ant "Walton obtained Fred in paid by said- unlawful detainer which was suit, bondsman of said Fred -Hurst in said suit. Also claim paid for Fred on $984 account extra of hay amount out said being Hurst for and corn, fodder, since evicted property. from said possession Plaintiffs also motion filed a property. day February, On the 26th the defendant trust filed in cause, statement of account said showing Massey that it was the owner of the note of Mrs. February years for $16,850,dated 4, 1911, and due three setting after its with interest date, attached. notes Also up securing the sale under the deed of trust *10 Signal Switch & Co. v. Automatic Trust Co. There evidence that on interest, $25,923.93. was day just prior plaintiffs pro- sale, but had thereto, party purchase who to cured said offered company it. sell hut the trust refused to note, defendant payment No offer note how- was, or tender of of said made. The court decreed ever, that per from sum six interest said found due with cent days thirty the date of the within 26,1920, March decree, to date, said said trustee’s sale and deed Walton naught set that defend- held, aside and for should company judgment ant on the state- trust and Bode-have plaintiffs plaintiffs, that ment of account filed right against nothing “the them, take thereunder as arising any being be- reserved to determine matter redemp- plaintiffs tween defendant Walton after ' ’'-“¡ n ’T? tion.” duly trial. motion for Sub- Plaintiffs also filed new by reducing sequently, judgment was modified note and on its said trust amount due the said to required paid by plaintiffs redeem, to to order be motion trial and new $23,932.74. Plaintiffs’ motion for thereupon overruled. for Nothing were with reference done to further seems have been accounting plaintiffs Wal- and defendant between to the appeal court. duly prosecuted this to their ton. Plaintiffs disposi- to in the relevant record, matters Further may appeal, mentioned tion of the which follows. earnestly respondent insist
I. counsel for Learned premature, it was taken because was de- had between before wa.s prior therefore aud Walton, fendant Appeal: parties. final as to all Final Judgmnent. regard But we do so rend- plain- adjudged that ered. Said decree nothing tiffs their take under against Bode, trust defendants accounting at all entitled the effect that were no tliev Mo&emdash;5 n MISSOURI, COURT OF SUPREME Switch & Co. v. Trust Co. Hurst Automatic they redeem- until defendant Walton unless and property, by paying ed the due the found amount company. hut it is true, This decree, was conditional ac- entitled no was a final were decree counting against re- made until disposed demption, they might never do. This controversy whole under existing facts rendered. at the time the decree Fur- ap- judgment of the former thermore, the this court on peal made was a final in the case all orders thereafter the lower were “orders after *11 meaning of final cause,” in the within the appeals Section 2038, Revisfed from 1909, Statutes point respondents. lie. We therefore rule this by appellants II. It is claimed learned counsel ' requiring plaintiffs that the court to erred in first pay Massey the amount due the trust setting to before aside
notes and redeem Reversal eanceling the trustee's deed and sale With Directions: agree to Walton. We ~wi.ththis conten- New Conditions. by reading tion. It will be seen directions in our to the lower which we quoted statement, provision have in our the first mae, setting the decree we directed it to was one aside trust, said trustee's sale and the Walton deed of accounting' parties, then for an between the and then grant might such reasonable time as lie court deem just redemption property upon payment for the by plaintiffs justly pur- of the sum found due for that pose. plaintiffs permitted were to ~a.vea reasona- redemption property-not ble time for the of the that had been ahsoli~telv from the trustee's sale-because aside, Massey canceled and set but from the deed of trust, plaintiffs which the were to have a reasonable time pay after the amount due thereon had been ascertain- by accounting'. company, ed The trust which was the holder of the note as well as trustee named in the trust, guilty deed of had. been found of unfair conduct colluding bring with Walton to about the trustee's 291.] TERM, Switch Oo. v. Automatic Trust Co. by sale trustee, the sheriff substitute him, justice hence demanded, ordered, and this court plaintiffs by rights, abso- their should reinstated ,and lutely annulling setting sale aside such trustee’s extending by of trust and deed made redemption time of of trust, from by owning a reasonable time after the amount thereon accounting. by had been determined procedure III. As to the extent account- ing against by plaintiffs. defendants only required Not are all the defendants account express language of our decree, but under provision of the cases, law and the mandate such things were to all lost, entitled be restored reason of the reversed, plaintiffs, defendants who received what lost -was judgment, reason and from third purchasers, innocent from such defendants. resti .Such may tution no be obtained motion case, separate newor suit need [Colburn therefor. filed Lanyon v. Chesney, 176 Mo. Yantis, 209 Mo. 670; cited; Edmonston, cases Turner v. 210 Mo. In the case bar the lower *12 against plaintiffs, prevented reversed, which we possession retaining property from of their pending litigation. reversing Under our decree against judgment. they said them their were restored rights property full if said of as trust was not default made and no sale had been given thereunder, and a time to from reasonable redeem said deed of trust after an had determined the They pos amount thereon. therefore due were entitled to session of the until time after reasonable such ac counting expired and determination had to writ a possession (Lanyon Chesney, 1) therefor v. 209 as Mo. against parties persons all to the innocent suit not MISSOURI,
68 OF COURT SUPREME v. Trust Switch & Co. Co. Hurst Automatic purchasers (Turner Edmonston, v. defendants profits 411) accounting for rents 210 Mo. and to an damage done to, or and waste of, rental all value damaged during crops property, including or converted They litigation. he entitled to recover would also expenses appeal” “all taxable costs and supra.] paid. [Colburn cited other cases Yantis, v. to the amount so We also hold paid were entitled satisfy costs in unlawful paid by the sureties detainer them or suit, whether (for however, such sureties, their bond benefit proceeding, paid them). the reversal if after sep judgment, whether restitution, to make governed by broad case, arate equitable or motion in the suit ex-aequo question et considerations. It is a money received. or bono had and suits 652.] [Teasdale l. c. Stoller, 133 Mo. v. possession equity the res and once in
A court of relinquish having jurisdiction its will complete adequate justice has hold until it done long parties. doing. [Real has aim for It so Savings 290, and l. c. 63 Mo. Collonious, Inst. v. Estate 415; l. Mo. c. Holt, District cited; cases School v. Tarpley, 391; Frazier, Mo. Woolum Waddle v. 396 S. W. there would bar, But in such cases as case attorneys liability plaintiffs’ be to account for the no litigation expenses or not tax- about fees or other liability for statute, no under the able as costs expense speculative damages, or cost as the such extra being feeding doing living or stock, business property. the di- But evicted from prop- expense moving away to the back rect from and just charge erty by would eviction, reason of plaintiffs. evicting against so the defendant plaintiffs’ the trust IV. As claim *13 accounting. †or TEEM, 1921. 291.] v. Co. Switch & Oo. Trust
Hurst Automatio purchased company the It the trust is true liad being property in accounting, and thereafter at trustee’s sale the possession property, in such would, profits chargeable while have been with the rents and possession notes. That so in if allowed interest on its [Potter Schaffer, much has been decided. v. Mo. purchase property not at But it did possession trustee’s and never had of nor commit sale, property, ted waste had no interest whatever possession or claimed Con title Walton. sequently, was not liable-to ac said profits property. count rents or waste of Y. under But learned counsel further claim that mandate in said cause the were to be “restored things judgment” to all lost reason which this and that under the reversed, reversed right possession plaintiffs lost the and rents obtain profits property. of their This but said trust is true, company, having profits, not such rents received aequo not be accountable therefor ex et bono as would for money property [Teasdale had or received. supra.] Stoller,
VI. But it claimed trust com- defendant pany guilty of this found was, bring conspiracy said about with Walton to sale which canceled and trustee’s was set Co-conspirator. was liable as co- and therefore it aside, conspirator after he acts with said Walton his including purchased at sale, committing taking thereof thereon. waste trust agree not contention. Said doWe opinion our to be a cause, found us except bring conspirator about such with illegal to him. far our trustee’s sale So shows company’s only conspiring interest with with said trust agreement might carry out its that it Walton purchase permit bim him *14 SUPREME COURT MISSOURI, OP
(cid:127) Hurst & Automatic Switch Oo. v. Trust Oo. trustee’s paying part for sale the amount he hid thereat, purchase price of the giving in cash and his for note company, by balance, to the trust $13,000', secured property, conpiracy of trust on the of the trust company with Walton ended, was when therefore, sale was made received cash and notes purchase price. deed of trust of Walton for the There finding was no evidence in and no our said conspiracy company of the trust with ex- Walton talcing possession committing tended to his of or waste upon property. company that we rule that
So defendant trust profits not liable for rents and waste after the trustee’s sale. charges plaintiffs’ (ex-"
VII. The other cept paid plaintiffs) taxable costs this suit accounting obviously are so matters for not which the company trust was liable to account that are not specifically appel- contended learned counsel for lant in his brief this not be further need noticed. As
VIII. to the interest allowed the Trust Com- pany. paid It is Walton certain amount in paid company cash afterwards the trust interest on gave $13,000 his note which he for the de Interest: Paid sale, f erred at the trustee's Purchaser. required therefore should not pay Massey the full amount interest note in order to paid redeem. But we hold that the amount company Walton to the trust is a matter plain- company between Walton the trust legally tiffs are not interested, held the lower appellant’s point. court. overrule We contention on properly IX. The lower also allowed company interest after the trustee’s sale to the TERM, Yol. 291.] Sigual Go. Switch Go. Trust Automatic hearing date of the on its claim for an on the Massey notes. The contention that Interest on Notes: day on the of the sale made a Tender. pay tender or offered to the notes and it, interest and the trust refused to receive supported by the evidence. The evidence of both parties simply request shows that at the Company, buy *15 thereto, and the trust refused to sell them. payment This circumstance did not constitute a tender of or anything equivalent thereto. accounting plaintiffs by sheriff, X. A~sto the th~e opinion defendant Bode. Our in this case did not find guilty wrongdoing said defendant intentional duty. seems, dereliction of He from all the Against good faith-believing record, to have acted in Sheriff. right had the to sell the as such sub- 1~eing eom~any trustee, ~titute notified the trust writing requesting that it refused to make the sale and stipulated him to act as in the deed of trust. We hold plaintiffs nothing therefore that ware entitled to on their accounting against statement or for defendant Bode. L plaintiffs they may XI. If see fit amend their accounting by filing separate motion for motion for by filing proper also, each and motion and giving thereof; any person due notice make Parties. party purchased to such who or was possession of said or received the use and profits benefit or rents and thereof or committed waste purchaser thereon and who was not an innocent thereof ori~in&iy after the suit was instituted. We th~refore reverse the of the lower seting decree, court with directions to enter its first aside canceling the said trustee's sale and deed to Walton Massey $13,000 made under the deed of trust and said company, n deed of trust made Walton to the said trust SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI, Drainage
State ex rel. Little Caldwell v. Biver District. plaintiffs’ sustain motion said property, then at such reasonable time as may proceed court spective fix to bear re- and determine the according
claims of the to an expressed, to the views herein such determina- including finding tion, of the amount due defendant trust *16 Lv. FRANK
THE STATE J. ex rel CALDWEL Appellant. DRAINAGE LITTLE RIVER DISTRICT, 19, One, Division December Exemption. DRAINAGE Taxation: DISTRICT: The office furni- ture, books, engineering instruments offi.ee equipment, owned exclusively carrying conducting and used on and its work a drainage organized in the district circuit court are county purposes. for state taxable Municipal Corporation. 2. -: -=: -: drainage A dis- private corporation trict is not any sense, public corpora- but tion legislative exercising governmental agent, and a functions exclusively; “municipal corporation” and while the term in its applies only incorporated strict sense cities, villages towns and having powers subordinate and local legislation, larger 'in its accepted and ordinarily applies sense it public local cor- poration exercising some function government, in- henee notes and the. suppress conspiracy bidding, chaser had entered into a and re- Vol. TERM, Switeh & Hurst Automatic Oo. v. Trust Co. sale and to set aside trustee’s with directions the case manded par- between the purchaser, take his deed to said mortgagor in which to
Notes
notes time thereafter or made tender offered to receive payment. and interest and holder refused 9. -: —--: -: as Substituted Where the Sheriff Trustee. provided trustee, deed of trust named a trust that in of its refusal to the then sheriff make ease should act acquired- the sale, company subsequently foreclosure and said trust mortgage due notes and when became the sheriff notified writing requested it refused him to make the sale and it, subsequently in good faith, make and he acted sale was adjudged wrongful brought to be have been a con- about spiracy between mort- purchaser, gagor, subsequent accounting, is entitled an allowance damages by others, for rents, sheriff or or waste done expense growing other litigation, out eviction mortgagor possession. his restitution Bringing 10. --: -: -: in Other Parties. fore- having closure sale adjudged trustee’s been invalid and
notes said purchase which aside ivas set sale said de- setting purchase money fendant in Walton, out gave cash and notes said Walton trust said com- pany purchase price subsequent in of such payments claiming interest made said chargeable that said were herein. sums tipie Defendant Bode filed statement at the same showing paid proceeds he over all had that came paying into his set $17,605 aside, sale hands, sale, secured, costs of the the balance on the note prayed go and he hence with costs. his petition on These matters of statement of the and trust defendants com pany coming on Bode, trial, objection permit any defendants, refused testi mony plaintiffs’ or items contained plain statement of them—counsel for account admitting they ever no evidence had been tiffs had thereon, Avaste committed claiming jointly liable account with de AArere but mandate the Su decision and fendant Walton under preme the case.' Court in the amount the evidence then heard as to The court of trust note OAvned due on the companjq principal the amount to be, and found OCTOBER, TERM, 1921.
a Mr. Otto offered to notes day just prior sale, from the trust
notes deed of trust, pay allow a reasonable time thereafter to sum and redeem from such will deed of not be trust, who being expiration considered as default until after the redemption time so fixed plaintiffs’ pay failure the same within such time; paid company may proceed not so if then to foreclose its said deed of trust in such manner as may Bagland, be advised. Brown and CC., concur. foregoing opinion PER CURIAM:—The by Small, adopted as the the court. C., All of the judges concur.