Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Mo. 430

Whelen v. Weaver

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1887

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1887-10-15

— I-Ion. J. R. Wood-side, Judge. (1) The judgment rendered by the justice of the peace, on which is based defendants’ claim of title in the proceeding to enforce the state’s lien for back taxes, is void, because said proceedings and judgment are against Henry Wheler and not Henry Whelen. The names Henry Wheler and Henry Whelen are not one and the same name. 55 Mo. 581.

Relies on Robson v. Thomas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Revebsed and demanded · Decided 1887-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1911

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

501887189019001910decided

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 →

Black, J.

¶1This is an action of ejectment for three parcels of land in Shannon county. Plaintiff shows a complete chain of title, by patent and deeds, in himself, to the described property, all of which deeds were duly *432executed and recorded on or prior to December 12, 1871. He continued to be owner of the land until 1879, when he conveyed to one Mendenhall, who conveyed back to plaintiff in February, 1883.

¶2The defendants’ title is a sheriff’s deed, dated November 5, 1880,. to defendant Weaver. The deed recites a sale under a special execution, issued on a transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace. The judgment was rendered by the justice in a suit by the state at the relation of the collector of Shannon county against Henry Wheler for the collection of taxes due on the land for the year 1878. The only notice of that suit, to the defendant in that case, was an order of publication. The sheriff’s deed does not describe' one of the parcels of land sued for, and, as to that, the defendant does not have even a shadow of a title.

¶3Again, the plaintiff sues by the name of Henry Whelen, and this seems to be his name, as disclosed by the deeds to and from him. The order of publication in the [tax suit is addressed to Henry Wheler. The proceedings, in tha,t suit, from first to last, are against Henry Wheler. Whelen and Wheler are not the same, they are not idem sonans. In Robson v. Thomas, 55 Mo. 582, names are said to be idem sonans if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced, or common and long-continued usage has, by corruption or abbreviation, made them identical in pronunciation. Here the pronunciation is entirely different. The tax proceedings, including the deed, are of no force or effect as against the plaintiff, for we have, on several occasions, held that in these tax suits the sheriff’s deed conveys only the interests of the parties who are made defendants, and the plaintiff was not made a defendant in this tax suit.

¶4Without considering the other questions, the judgment, which was for the defendants, is reversed and the cause'remanded.

All concur.
/93/mo/430 · .json · Public domain