*1 installing a window negligence of defendant upon the rests install. He was (and agreed) screen which he assumed decisions, negligently performing an under all the liable, perform a total liable tort not have been but would failure obligation. the contractual Campbell, C., affirmed. concurs. the trial court Sperry, C., is foregoing opinion of affirmed. opinion court. The Corp. rel., Relator, Loan Home Owner’s of Missouri Judge v. Respondent. 110 S.W. County, Mo., Court of O’Bryan for relator. Redick Burns & White No brief for Home Owners5,
SPERRY, corporation, Corporation, *2 known a relator, sought herein as and obtained writ of directed to duly 8 of elected, qualified acting Judge of Division No. and County the Jackson Court, known hereafter as The facts are Heitman were that Numa F. and Emma P. Heitman the owners of certain real and estate situated petition; they described in delivered made, executed and that that by their note secured on property; deed trust said fore- delinquent legally said note became was and deed of trust closed property 28, 1936; be- sold on October that relator purchaser came the Heit- legal at after to it said sale notice that nians intended to redeem under of sections provisions Missouri, 1936, 3064, 1929; 12, and Revised Statutes that on November redeem, Heitmans respondent application filed court of their accompanied by duly by by a them Walter Gran- bond executed and Tyson surety; ville as 14, 1936, that on November sidered application said record and bond and made an order of disapproving denying bond application.- said Thereafter 23, 1936, twenty days November which more than after the was during sale but previous the same term of court which order at made, was judgment, permitted set aside the former Tyson bond, Heitmans to permitted strike the name of from the sign Earl Russell to “refile” approved same and it. It was then application granted. for redemption was mortgagor if a Missouri seeks to redeem foreclosed must, provisions of Section 3063 3064 R. under S. 1929, twenty days sale, which file bond must according statutes, ap be terms of the and which must be twenty If proved the court. no such bond filed within jurisdiction grant day period right court has no of re C.), (2d) demption. (K. Hanks v. Seehorn [State 714, jurisdictional. The of the bond filing It 715.] any precedent, compliance condition and without no Safety purpose Savings attaches [Williams (K. 789; C.), c. 787, Association S. W. l. Louis), Dawson et al. (St. (2d) 488, v. Hetzler 74 W. S. prior expiration bond to the
twenty day signed by Tyson. It was the one statutory specifically disapproved by was was abandoned 1936, Heitmans. That was situation surety respondent permitted which time bond with a new at new to be filed. was no bond in which There that existence security Additional be amended. could not be ordered be-
could secured, that no even if was bond to additionally filing which taken. be method signed surety Respondent Russell out time. time had no motion take to entertain connection with this matter.
Respondent contends lie the reason will not appeal. Orr v. adequate there is an Latshaw, “As an Supreme 291 Mo. l. c. proposition questioned. abstract of law this How doctrine is not ever, application has paramount no Here the case at bar. question issue respondent’s utterly it was held that court was expired. arrest after the term ex rel. Mueller v. Wurdeman et 232 W. *3 complete, banc,
en said: we satisfied relator “While are had a court, speedy effective . . . and that remedy appeal Preliminary . ., . the might, well have to refused have issued rule, yet, us, since cause and we are plainly is doing,' our powers dispose in so will to of the case on proceed we its «Upon against merits.” point we rule this above authorities fully complained
It is next that the act of herein is “a contended judicial scope of completed and, therefore, act” not within the “yet, general prohibition. That is the rule: where of court, give prohibition will anything to be remains done done, only preventing what remains to complete relief, not issuing In undoing has been done.” J. what [50 711.]' but the court mould writ to meet the writ its 1617, R. Mo. particular ease. of circumstances [Section McCaffery v. Aloe et in State Court said if “Undoubtedly could, . 483: this court Mo. qualified it, have show to rule to had seemed call conditions injunction leaving in force the further by expressly in But judgment this court. the absence of such of final order or proceed preliminary rule not arrests further qualifications In ex done.” rel. McElvain been what has ings, undoes but Ap Springfield of Riley, 276, S. W. v. proceedings court, lower halted prohibition peals entered, been of had complained directed judgment procedure. of method proper granted Aloe, supra, tem sought effect, quash by prohibi in it injunction porary parties 483: “After court said, It was tion. no further in the case until this proceed were admonished injunction already matter, could look into the the maintenance of the issued procedure would have been as unlawful as further case.” And State ex rel. Wilson v. Burney, App.
l. c. 338, wholly this court “Where the excessive action is not completed long any part and as of it remains unexecuted, further proceedings upon it properly may prohibited.” the latter quashed case circuit court had a notice to take depositions, this court sustained of theory writ on the that the kept notice had been alive, despite quashing the order same. relator, at bar judgment but for the respondent, has present right possession long but so as the-
circuit operative, will prevented be thereby entering from into its possession, receiving thereform, rental or selling period year from it for a of one October the meantime respondent continues retain of the may, motion, whole matter impound on his own the rentals and income, may require juris bond. His proceedings, diction touching complained which the order step, but one remains. very sections the statute under which claims all continue for a of one year from the date of sale. And same statutes indicate clearly approval steps of a a chain but one of of events and procedure necessary bring about the redemption. Therefore complained fully completed judicial we the act of is not hold that wholly to enter the entered; it was and that remedy. proper *4 permanent. Campbell, C., is made preliminary
Our rule curs. foregoing opinion by C., Sperry, permanent. rule is made opinion of the
as the Clay Bank, Respondent, The Health Culture Appellants. Co. et December