28 Mo. 475 | Mo. | 1859
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this case is whether the Land court had power to set aside a sale in partition, at the return term, without notice to the purchaser.
It seems that under the order of the court three several pieces of land were directed to be sold and were sold. A
The court had power over the execution of its process until the officer returned it, and it is not believed to be .the practice in such cases, or essential to the exercise of the power of the court that the bidders or purchasers should be notified. It is their business to make objections at the proper time and to see to the completion of their title without any formal notice. So long as the term lasts, the matter is in the power of the court to take such steps as under the circumstances may be thought just and prudent. Although we can not see any reason for setting aside the sale to Early, as there seemed to be no connection between his tract or its title and the one which was bought by the dissatisfied purchaser, yet the matter was for the Land court exclusively, and, if objected to, should have been resisted at the time and before a resale was made. "We can see that manifest injustice would be done now, if this court should permit the first sale to Early to stand and yet require the partitioners to submit to all the losses occasioned by the second sale.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. In my opinion, the pur-
chaser ought to have had notice of the proceeding to set aside the sale.