*1 State ex rel. Davidson. strong that’ plaintiff, healthy, contradiction shows without vigorous young thirty years man, age, has Excessive incapacitated performing ordinary from been manual Verdict. labor, but has been rendered a re- semi-invalid say $25,000 mainder of his life. We are to an unable award of injury require interposition is so for excessive to of this court. foregoing judgment
In view of the circuit court must be concur, except Graves, J., affirmed. It is All so ordered. absent. Relation and to of J. Collector Use McKinney, L. L. County, of Revenue of Texas A. v. Jacob Davidson, Rosa Brown, Appellant. W. R. County;
Davidson One, July 30,
Division 1926. Mortgaged County. Notwithstanding- 1. TAXATION: Land the land mortgaged County Fund, to secure a loan from the it was tax- School value; mortgagor property at its abb assessed and if taxed as the (the record), actual owner and the owner of the fact that it was mort- gaged taxation, could not withdraw from either whole mortgage or to the extent of the debt. Nor could the fact that bond mortgage any secured effect. taxable have such Mortgagee. 2. SUIT FOR TAXES: A Parties: suit for taxes should be brought against trustee property, mortgagee owner of parties; mortgage has should be made and if County Fund, to secure made to the a loan from the School brought against mortgagor, owner, and the actual and record suit is against obtained, county, judgment thereunder, is- a sale an absent void, although fraud, purchaser, is or collusion on the sue of the taxes due. sells for less than the land Mortgaged County: on Bond as Parties. Sure- -: to county Sureties Land 3. ties given from the Fund a loan School the bond on necessary parties assessed taxes to a suit to recover are not n By (Sec. mortgaged against to secure the loan. statute land they securities,” they “personal interest 1919) have no are R. S. necessary parties But never- to the tax suit. them which makes in the theless, bond, financially they responsible it is amount of if represented in a to set motion presumed would be to he purchaser the bond. for one-fiftieth of the land to sale of abstracter, prepared for who as Purchaser. Abstracter TAX SALE: judgment under for taxes the land sold title of abstract the collector ight costs, the lands at has a ás taxed fees were hose rochase the tax sale. Principles. Equitable A set motion to Aside: -: Motion Set 5. aside a sale price, under of lands the sheriff’s deed were term the sale at the same and sustained filed delivery, pro- court, is a acknowledged open before but made ceeding are to be equitable principles court, nevertheless but side of law upheld. determining the order should whether considered Supreme Court [April Term, Yol.. TAX Motion SALE: Inadequate Set Aside: Trust Estate: Price. is not to determine whether a sale of lands for taxes can be grossly aside on sole inadequate consideration was where of infants neglect has been sacrificed A trustees. *2 loan made from the by School Fund and secured the to county on land afterwards sold fund, pre for is a trust and created by served law for children, the county education of judges and if the charged by and other officials law with the care neglect of the fund their duty, through neglect permit and the land to be sold for one-twentieth of its value and loan, one-fiftieth neglect considered, that is a fact to be grossly in connection with whether inadequate the sale determining at the price, in the sale should be aside. -:7. -: -: selling Sheriff. The sheriff a a under land judgment like land under to agent plaintiffs defendants, owing taxes is the of both and duty each, protect selling and all; bound the interest of mortgaged county execution for taxes to the to secure a loan County Fund, county the party School where the a tax to the judgment, necessarily county suit and he knows that has an interest land, duty and it sacrificed, to see that the not only only where the bid' one-half the taxes due and one-twentieth duty value of the land and reject one-fiftieth of the loan it is his bid and return the execution “no sale for want oí bidders.” County Representative -: -: -: 8. Court: The at Sale. Fund, owners of land had cured the loan §1250 borrowed from the se- School by mortgage county. to the Later suit for taxes brought against rendered, tracts, acres was purchaser and the owners and the Judgment §48.45. issued, forty-acre and the land was first offered in having bids been received the but no whole tract hundred of two §25, sold for bid. The sheriff executed a deed to open court, acknowledged it in but delivered before it was prosecuting attorney term the filed at the same the coun- motion for ground (a) ty the sale on in- to set aside consideration was (b) neglected appoint adequate court had failed that the protect county’s representative attend interest. Both by county judges clearly charges of established evidence. The knew were pending called attention had been and the their the loan and necessarily was interested knew that sale. sheriff Held, at the time. hundred dollars loan was five was worth children; especially, minor education fund for trust duty properly neglected fund, also, their said the sheriff justly grounds together the considering sale was set aside. two Prosecuting Attorneys, 18 Juris-Cyc. District and References: Corpus n, Evidence, J., 46, 103, 1307, p. 32, p. 22 C. n. n. 49. Section J., Section C. 62; 791, 78; p. 875, 14; p. p. 1249, 788, 58, Taxation, p. Cye., p. n. n. 2: n. 37 New; 29; p. 1375, New; p. 1376, 41 New; p. n. 32 n. n. 1373, 1385, 21n. p. 3.n. Judge. W. Barton, Court.—Hon. E. Circuit Appeal from Texas Affirmed. appellant. & Lamar
Lamar, Evans exempt interest the land. It was bad no (1) 1919; Casey, R. v. 12753, 12752, S. State ex rel. from taxation. Secs. (2) question Crawford, 157 235; Mo. 51. 210 Mo. Fitterer v. 551 v. Davidson. ex rel. of defense dionld exemption from was a matter taxation trial, judgment cannot be been attacked raised quash the rel. subsequent 'by term a motion to sale. State ex 384; Ragsdale, Tate, 268; Ozark 109 Heffernan v. 199 Co. v. Mo. Mo. (3) objection Beil, App. Curtiss 131 v. Mo. sureties process, on the bond were with was not raised in the not served properly could be quash, motion to hence not considered 1919; Bros., App. R. Sec. v. Wolfskill Mo. court. S. Stone proper parties, if 441. Even the sureties bond were said not parties and, being parties, made would Kreidler, 472; affected sale. Gitehell Blevins Smith, Shipley, Milner v. Allen McCabe, (4) objection R. Brown, W.
purchaser, made abstract title suit was not raised in the motion to hence not quash, before the Sec. court. question if R. 1919. Even this raised S. *3 precluded quash, appellant purchasing motion to from at Hand, 210 Mo. Walcott v. 122 Mills, 689; this sale. Walker v. Mo. (5) 106. 628; Gregory, Inadequacy 151 Turner v. Mo. considera- quashing an alone is sufficient tion sale. 31 Scott, 8; 331; v. Zelle, Phillips 12 Mo. Meir Mo. Hammond v. Bank, 48; v. 63 491; Mo. Landrum Stewart, Mo. Gordon v. 59 v. 355; Herman, 532; 99 Walters Mo. Briant 96 v. v. Jack- O’Neil, Mo. Castle, 183; 193 598; Mann, v. Mo. Welch v. Martin son, 99 Mo. Donahoe, 684; Derby Mills, 208 v. 210 Mo. Walker 304; v. Mo. 193 Gangloff, 649; Mangold 239 Dougherty Bacon, Mo. 684; v. v. Mo. at case bar was in- 520. consideration not so 237 Mo. outrage adequate moral sense and as to “shock the conscience.” 8; Zelle, 331; v. 31 Scott, 12 Mo. Meir Mo. Martin v. Hammond v. 183; Dougherty Gangloff, 239 649. 193 Mo. v. Mo. Castle, Moierly respondent. Z>.E. absolutely in this State is
(1) All interest land un- 10, A Constitution, delinquent 6. Mo. art. sec. suit taxable. against only persons whom conveys interests of a valid taxes real, County In Texas owned case was obtained. this land, and tax judgments, in this all interest tangible and untaxable face, are void on their far as thereunder and sales executions 1919, 1248; Donnelly, Watt sec. v. R. S. County is concerned. sureties on fund bond question (2) 195. 80 Mo. for the purpose considered process should be with being served inadequate for which this consideration determining why be obtained under the sale bid that could the best was sold being They proper parties, set aside. the circuit 315. 552 Court oe Vol. record, who have an interest the land described
parties of
1919,
mortgage.
12945,
R. S.
secs.
tax sale and in the school fund
11167,
(3)
12946, 12948,
While the fact
purchaser
ivas the
the tax sale
not alone constitute
abstracter
does
setting
disputed
grounds
together
with
aside the tax
taken
abstracter,
title due to the
and known
county,
good
bidders,
communicated
him to the
reason
believe
grossly
inadequate price
land was
sold at so
an
because
Turner,
to discourage
price being
action
paid.
fair
Hook v.
333;
22
Hinkle,
Mo.
290; Mangold
Bacon,
Wootson v.
20 Mo.
v.
520;
County
237
Conway Nolte,
17;
Madden,
Mo.
11
v.
Mo.
Cole
v.
585;
Ed.)
(2
1095;
91 Mo.
Rorer on Jud. Sales
secs.
Shaw v.
281;
Potter, 50 Mo.
Moore,
(4)
State ex rel. v.
county by funds for the law is but the trustee of the school benefit agents in and are but its and of minors court education such and preservation of said funds for uses management and Nolte, Conway County Madden, Cole beneficiaries. Potter, 17; Shaw LINDSAY, Brown, appellant, purchaser C . W. was the R.
two in hundred acres of land at a sale under execution for and his is taken from action of' circuit appeal setting upon County. in the motion of Texas . Evidence against for the motion was heard. up leading the sale transactions were follows: April 5,
On A. L. Davidson, Jacob Davidson and Rosa hus- wife, question, $1,250 band owners of land borrowed capital County, and School Fund of Texas executed their bond sum, and also a on said land. bond was also sureties. executed certain other individuals as The bond was it, year date, payments upon no made were due one after years 1920 accruing upon and 1921 the taxes for paid. were unpaid years brought, judg- taxes for those
Suit years. $48.45, the amount of the taxes said obtained ment petition of the record show that the abstract The recitals Covert, Davidson, Rosa L. H. suit, Davidson, Jacob James A. defendants. trustee, and Texas made Jeff Davidson defendants, upon the individual service personal There was upon county through service clerk. service on the defect of is no serious claim There rendered, thereon, petition, the form land, That all these described the of sale. the notice conceded, form in the usual for, and were taxes sued forth place making such usual time was had the sale appellant upon sold to land was dispute. sales acres, which was the tract bid. whole $25 bid tracts, no for sale 40-acre bids had first had been offered *5 A appellant by was executed to the been received. deed sheriff open -delivery of the deed was court, in but withheld acknowledged eight days sale, after court, having been filed the there of the order asking of Texas that the the motion term, same Vol. Court of was in- (1) consideration grounds on the that the sale be set aside (2) being $2500; of the land $25 bid and the value adequate, the -neglected county appoint representa- court had failed to county’s therein, tive attend interest (3) untaxable, county that the interest said land was county joined party therefore could not be as a defendant. appears, thus that the motion raised no of fraud or issue collusion on purchaser, anyone. or of urged On’behalf of it that the had an untax- land, judgment, able interest tax execution and this, sale were void far concerned. As to it be taxed must said that the land was its assessed value, and the property Davidson, owner, of said the actual mortgage that the was to the record,, owner of and the fact any way taxation, could not in withdraw the land from either in mortgage whole, or amount of the debt. to the extent Nor could fact that the bond secured tax- any able have such effect. mortgagee, suit, was the in accordance with provisions required brought Section “against property.” provision
the owner of the Under it has been held mortgagee, trustee, as well as the should parties be made Fizer, Mo. Kreidler, the suit. Gitchell v. [Stafford Hudson, Williams v. 524.] holdings mortgagee cases, party Under the those not made a suit, rights redemption, to such a has certain but such a not void. urged county,
It is also on behalf of the and as constituting a de- proceeding's suit, the tax fect that the sureties on the bond given by parties mortgagor, were not made to the suit. Counsel contends, although motion, is not a that the sureties support land, and in interest that contention cita- 11167, 11173, 11174, tion Sections made also Sections 12945. 12946, 12948, 1919. The Revised Statutes sureties had no interest ownership obligation Their the land. was a one, contractual debt, if pay principal maker failed to do so. In the terms “personal securities,” Section and no reason is sustaining contention, seen, nor find can we that the sections men- authority holding tioned are that the sureties had an interest in parties the land which made them to the tax suit. urged, Another matter not included in motion, but is, that the purchaser abstracter, prepared was shown to be the who had for collector the abstract title this land and abstracts of other lands Mills, also suit for In taxes. Walker v. wherein purchaser attorney of land sale was the who had brought *6 y. 555 ex Davidson. State eel. page 690: suit, said, it was at collector, after the and looked good purchase sale, such there is no reason “If can at the collector attorney purchase. why could not likewise There assign charged anything character fraud, or no issue collusion upon right single question plaintiffs of the the answer. So that cases, we must hold that had purchase sale, at the tax under our he (cid:127) against defendant.” The right such is ruled this contention 1921, p. fee of the abstracter taxable as costs. [Laws 673.] county disqualify him a bidder. The That relation did not alone appointed representative present, to attend the sale court no county. dispute upon There is no or to look after the interests of ‘‘ county The knew that point. county clerk testified: court The papers I county in this tax suit. filed the served on me was sued brought matter had dis- up them before the court. The prior cussed between me and the court but the arrangement anyone court made no with nor else so far as I know, me ’’ representative to have a at sale. “I presiding judge county court of the testified: have had any meeting at no discussion court as to or not whether county’s appear protect court should interest at a tax against subject mortgages. school lands to school fund We never only looking suits, matter, discussed the at the we checked have any appointed them, over but there was never action taken. We no any representative appear county’s tax sales to in- subject to terests. have had lands that were school fund mort- We gages sold tax sales.” remaining question raised is that of of price, which testimony foregoing, in'
is to be taken consideration of the rough ridge The land was described as other circumstances shown. County, Piney land, in the extreme north near the forty River, railroad, about miles from the nearest and with distant did not “amount to much.” improvements which open that it was admitted court The record recites the re- question land in the valuation of the is spective “that five counsel hundred dollars.” appeal equity, from a decree rendered in a suit
This setting a sale a motion an order filed and but one from sale was made. at the term which the Under the hold determined proceeding 64 Vaughan, Mo. was one on the ing Holden v. Hurley also, Clay Co., Universal the court. law side of [See App. Hartley Innes, l. c. ex rel. We 423.] there no matters about which conflict heretofore out finding facts, made no trial court no declara the evidence. The party. asked either tions of law were op "Vol. Court The evidence con- offer himself as witness. did not appellant documentary evidence above of record, the matters
sisted clerk, presiding judge testimony mentioned, and the byit court had before and the sheriff. trial subject documentary fact that the land sold evidence *7 given security $1250, as for a loan of mortgage to a county, as fund, and the fact that the belonging to the moneys school given only evidence in suit. The had been mortgagee, summoned by attending others bidders or prospective information to the as county in land, or as to concerning interest of the sale bidding, affected was the testi- knowledge of that interest whether by a The by sheriff, appellant. as witness called mony given generally “I what understood as don’t know sheriff testified: being on the time fund this to there only way on land. The reduced the bids I sale, whether that nor I read the and read would know when notice know [was] in defendants the suit.” right with the many dealing duty of are eases courts to
There upon grounds inadequacy price, sale, based aside a set preceding immediately attending other circumstances many are in the The such cases cited briefs. contention made inadequacy is that where in the consider- counsel gross inadequacy, it alone is sufficient to justify ation amounts quashing an sale. in the court many that, cited, to review here the cases is question part, raised large elaborately because counsel is Mangold Bacon, a case discussed decided subject Banc, covered, many wherein the whole is Court cases majority opinion, reviewed in are cited the dissenting question J. opinion again filed The discussed Graves, Van v. Wright, more recent case of Graafieland In question Mangold Bacon, raised, and the manner con sideration, case, stated, “May is l. c. 520: an inadequacy gross judicial sale, consideration in a as to shock conscience, ground ever, more, equity be sufficient without to set aside a question might deed? many sheriff’s The arise under different con obiter, say ditions. To avoid what we at this time must be taken strictly applicable ato case like the one at proceeds bar. This ease $1200, theory on possession that land worth in actual as a farm, in the absence of owner with no actual him, notice to sold under pay any a tax sale a sum insufficient taxes fully or to pay pittance personal on a costs, pur service—the claiming chaser title.” conclusion, following stated as 521: l. c. ex
1926} eel. v. Davidson. is that a court and better doctrine the conservative “We think aggravated in an Missouri, acting with caution and equity equitable no other considerations aid from case and when con- of a on the sole set aside a sheriff’s deed hand, may grossly inadequate as shock conscience. sideration so treated in books on is not consideration “That head equitable relief, but under the equity as á distinct head of noth- name amounts to nothing mere fraud, point. spell facts ing. inflamed all the as to inadequacy is so under If other, equivalent of the fraud, things, each the then we have two ’’ viz., inadequacy. fraud and “aggravated case,” are constituting in that it an facts case may briefly stated Man- fully, comparison out and for here. taking gold Hogan, it to one owner of tract of land sold 40-acre became deed of trust a deferred taxes secure payment. Hogan brought against “Mangold, delinquent and the collector suit wrote Mangold served, thereupon personally others.” *8 to the amount of the asking the collector be advised of to penalty answered, giving amount, the and costs. The collector collector, full, receipt it in from who Mangold paid received the question. years for After paid the tax book full the marked that, Hogan by sheriff in the suit the suit went was the served worth sold judgment; issued, $1200 on was to knowledge part Mangold. on After $12.50, for without actual the reconveyed by Mangold paid taxes, the land was to him had the Mangold relying Hogan on fact that consideration, - given costs, had paid taxes, penalties he no further had opinion suit. and some to the In the reference made attention given that the lien of the State was ex- consideration to the fact paid, taxes no hausted, and satisfied when the were' there was right foreclose, had no foreclose and that the collector to lien left to get advantage to the incidental discharged ordqr lien for taxes costs. case, equitable in the instant arriving principles at a conclusion In view, perti- This and certain to the facts. others applied be to by Goode, J., well matter hand are State ex stated nent to cited, Innes, App. heretofore follows: rel. v. considering comes down to this: all the question for decision “The including purpose stated, suit, facts we value, prompt less than one-fifth of its property at sacrifice of the money purchase paid the sale before set aside move to and that executed, possible it is to do without deed or sheriff’s purchasers, grant consistently can a court relief causing loss to may Execution sales be set legal doctrines? with settled judicial sales, in the reasons sense the same strict about motion for Missouri, Vod. Court oe motion words, may of this rule that on be. reason of the [Ray injustice. process prevent its own can control Building Rogers Hdw. & Baldwin Co. App. Stobbs, Mo. Ed.) (3 sec. 2;442 Freeman on Executions 308.] Co., motions must be prevails in that these Though this State the rule legal according it is none the procedure, determined heard and facts, applied to ascer equitable principles are that less true vacated; is shown in the stand or be the sale should tain, whether inadequacy gross of the just cited. The eases cited and those though pro weight; the courts have price is a circumstance occasions, they would not vacate a sheriff’s sale fessed on numberless actually pronounced them reason, judgments show for this When the than their bite. bark is worse their irregularity, mistake, very great, circumstance of bid was some fraud diligently nearly always found, injustice was searched ’’ preventing confiscation. the court to save its face while enabled County Madden, equity suit In Cole sheriff, under a aside a sale made moneys County, given a loan to secure of certain Cole amounting, sale, at the time of the to about $1000. sale pursuant made to the order of the court. The lot sold was $1000, petition sold for $100. worth in excess of and was theory provision that the court had made for an was on present property up agent to be and bid on the amount loan; agent present sale, at the due to the conduct management making consequent of the sheriff mainly misapprehension agent. The case was decided point, is, management sheriff, though through wrong part, motive on his any caused the mis- agent apprehension county. mind But another *9 is, aspect given consideration, prop- of the case was that that where erty belonging infants, estates, by negli- or trust is sacrificed equity, gence guardians trustees, proper cases, in of- will interfere protection improvidently and set aside sales thus for their made. following bar, there is the in testimony In the case at of the sheriff: “ opinion Q. your honest that this land Is it sold a smaller average than the land does Well, its value at tax ? cent of sales A. per on it.” cheap price it is question in prior the land to the been on time of
Tie had improvements testified and, while he were not great of upon that the house the land said could value, he also not be built sheriff knew of Necessarily, county the interest of for $25. selling in property sheriff agent “The was the in the land. of defendant, owing plaintiffs duty like both the to each State ex rel. Davidson. bound to parties the interest all of concerned. was duty property to see that sacrificed, and to that end ” he could have returned the ‘no sale for want of bidders.’ McCann, In this case the fund secured [Davis 178.] by mortgage county was a trust fund created under and preserved by the laws State, of the aid of the education of age. officials, children of the judges, especially charged by law with the care fund, of that held by perpetual purpose, wholly neglected trust for the duty. They, their officials, having the other concerned in or knowledge taxes, of the suit for and of the trust relation of the land, permitted security and its interest to be adjudged sold for one-half of the amount of the and for one- agreed property. twentieth of the value of the if property “So neglect, misapprehension infants be sacrificed fraud or guardian, they by setting their will be relieved aside the may re-sale. The order of the re-sale be made the court’s motion, own guardian for all infants.” Judicial on Sales [Rorer (2 Ed.) sec. 566.] out,
The evidence set and all that reference has been made, objection went in appellant. without on the Under all the in this ease, circumstances is not to hold that the ground sale could be set aside the sole that the considera- Mangold grossly inadequate. opinion Bacon, tion was Innes, time the decision State ex rel. v. written supra, opinion expressed the Innes case that question State, in this whether decisions left unsettled conscience, ever, price gross more, as to shock the without sheriff’s deed. The sufficient to set learned author Innes, view, opinion said, ex rel. v. under that at page justice are available for the “As additional facts ends of 426: matter, we will follow the fashion of other present courts resting opinion in from our and refrain favor similar cases single circumstance was sacri- appellant on party motion, bond nor No maker of the ficed.” financially responsible If they here. amount represented represented. would be bond, presumably, sale was filed on set aside the behalf of motion to right attorney, duty. was his prosecuting required by who made the loan county court judges of the Statutes to “cause the 11173, Revised same to be Section estate within the county, in fee on real free by secured encumbrances, the value double the amount from all liens *10 1920, year years of one for the sued The taxes loan.” of made, loan and the time the real delinquent at the upon, Vol. oe Court according agreed value, was worth taken, to its security estate loan. These were less than óne-half the amount of matters by setting sale; but, laying could not be those cnred aside the aside presence or considerations, the evidence shows that without even anyone represent appointment of the interests beneficiaries those, positions of who virtue of their official loaned, the fund security relation, permitted this to be sacrificed for bore a trust one- agreed gross inadequacy of price, of value. There twentieth might court, that, well shock the conscience of to- such as naturally made, under which this sale was gether with the conditions setting tending result, fully justified produce such the court doing sale; Seddon, C., order so affirmed. con- and its curs. opinion by foregoing Lindsay, C., is adopted
PEE CURIAM: —The judges All opinion concur, except of court. Graves, J., absent. Jasper
Jasper County, Appellant. Farm Bureau One, July 30,
Division by County: Appropriations 1. FARM BUREAU ACT: Farm Bureau Act Constitutional. (Secs. 12142, 1919), providing that 12135 to R. S. county composed may appropriate a farm funds for use of bureau fifty who resident farm-owners of not less than two hundred each, organized pay membership than one dollar an annual fee of not less by assisting general public “promoting purpose welfare of among having practices and conditions” of farm and home betterment its systems successful" constitutional 4, development encouragement profitable permanent objects promotion “the development agriculture” of “the institutions,” rural, growth and educational all social law, Article 46 or 47 of violate Section Section and does not 9, the Constitution. 6 Article or Section Purpose: Institution. The fact that Public Public -:-: Gifts: 1919, 112) (Laws p. Act purpose Bureau primary the Farm public appropriation funds does render agriculture promote purpose, public and its unconstitutional, purpose is nevertheless for such appropriations good. public promote the is to chief function gifts society, money private but the association or grants public carrying expenditures incurred in out payment of appropriations in institution, public is a institu- that the bureau public work of monthly make requires the bureau act fact is shown tion county court. reports annual 7, 990, J., p. Agriculture, Section n. 2 C. Juris-Cyc. Corpus References: 587, 588, 34, 290, p. p. J., n. n. Counties, 15 C. Section p. 40 New. n. 35. J., n. n. 3 New. Evidence, 23 C. Section