Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Mo. 294

Neal v. Stone

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1855-01-15

This was a motion to set'aside a sheriff’s sale in partition-. The parties to the partition suit were the heirs of William Stone, deceased, only a portion of whom joined in this motion. At the hearing, it appeared that the land-sold consisted of parts of two adjoining quarter sections, comprising in all upwards of one hundred and eighty acres.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1947

6 state decisions

201855186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Soott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶21. The objection that all the parties injuriously affected by the acts of the sheriff in conducting the sale did not unite in the motion to set it aside, should have its weight in determining this question, but cannot prevail to the extent of preventing its consideration by the courts. As this is a summary proceeding by motion to set aside the sale, it may be regarded as a step in the original cause to which all proper parties were made. Courts are impressed with a sense of the policy of sustaining judicial sales, and are aware of the evil consequences which may result from invalidating them on slight grounds. But this policy must not be so rigidly adhered to, as to create the impression that bad faith or collusion will escape animadversion. When sales are fairly conducted by all those concerned in them, they will not on trivial grounds be disturbed.

¶3The evidence shows that, by the management of those who reaped the advantage, the property in this instance was sold at a price considerably below its value. By the contrivance of the father-in-law of the purchaser, those who would have attended the sale were induced to absent themselves, and the property was afterwards sold in a manner to prevent those from bidding who did attend. The father-in-law being a party to the suit, and interested in the proceeds of the sale, his representations were calculated to influence those who desired to attend the auction.

¶4In conducting a sale of this kind, the sheriff is the agent for all interested, and he should not be controlled by the directions of any one. He should exercise his own discretion, and, governing himself by circumstances, he should conduct the sale in such way as, in his judgment, will obtain the greatest price for the estate sold. Lumping sales are narrowly watched, and *297they will generally be discountenanced when complaints are made against them. Still, there are cases in which a whole tract of land, if all its parts are contiguous, would be best sold altogether, although it may consist of many congressional subdivisions. When the sheriff is disposed to discharge his duty impartially, it is an easy matter to ascertain what is best to be done. As it appears that the sheriff suffered himslf to be controlled by those who obtained the property at an under price, the sale should have been set aside.

Judge Ryland concurring,

¶5the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

/20/mo/294 · .json · Public domain