Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 Mo. 13

Powell v. Greenstreet

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1888

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1888-04-15

— Hon. G..IT Burokhartt, Judge. Execution sales of- land under the back-tax law of 1877 stand on the same ground as ordinary execution sales of land; and the purchaser acquires only the title or interest of the defendant in execution and nothing .more. Acts 1877, pp. 384-5-6-7, secs. 6, 7, 8; Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 195; Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 94; Jasper Co. v. Wadlow, 82 Mo. 172-78 ; Caswell v. Gray, 85 Mo. 169 ; Payne «. Lott, 80 Mo. 676.

Relies on Boatmen's Savings Bank v. Grewe · Watt v. Donnell · Evans v. Robberson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1888-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1918

9 state decisions

401888189019001910decided

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.

¶1Action of ejectment. Plaintiff put in evidence two deeds to himself, each for different portions of the premises sued for. The deeds were executed by the sheriff of Macon county, and are based upon judgments recovered in the name of the state to the use of the collector, in suits to enforce the state’s lien for unpaid taxes. In one case the judgment Was rendered against Mathsulah Bevier and W. D. Hicks, and in the other against W. D. Hicks. Plaintiff offered no other evidence of title whatever. It was admitted that the land had always been vacant up to the time defendant went into possession; that he had possession at the commencement of the suit, but it does not appear when or under whom he acquired possession.

¶2It must be taken as settled law, that purchasers at *15these sheriff’s sales, made on executions in tax suits, acquire only the right, title, and interest of the defend.ants in the tax suits. Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 196; Boatmen’s Savings Bank v. Grewe, 84 Mo. 478; Evans v. Robberson, 92 Mo. 192. But conceding this, the plaintiff then insists that the deed makes out a primafacie case of title in the grantee, that is to say of former ownership of the land by the defendants in the tax suits. This claim is based on section 6839, Revised .Statutes, which declares that the deed£ £ shall be primafacie evidence of title, and that the matters and things therein stated are true.” The effect of this section is to make the deed evidence, without production of judgment or execution; but it is evidence of no more than it, in. contemplation of law, purports to be, namely, a conveyance of all of the title of the defendants in the execution. It is no evidence that the defendants in the special execution were the owners of the land. In this respect the deed is not unlike sheriffs’ deeds in general. They are made evidence of the facts recited, but it has never been held or supposed that the deed was evidence of title to the land sold in the judgment debtor. Some other questions are discussed in the briefs, but it is useless to consider them upon the present state of the record.

¶3The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Ray, J., absent; the other judges concur/
/95/mo/13 · .json · Public domain