Bowman v. St. Louis Times
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rosenfield v. Fine (Mass. 1937)
- Laclede Land & Improvement Co. v. Epright (Mo. 1915)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
On the eighteenth of May, 1877, B. M. Chambers purchased the lease, machinery, fixtures, telegraphic privileges, and other property of the St. Louis Times newspaper, and on the same day conveyed the property thus acquired.to the defendant, Donovan, in trust, to secure some principal notes aggregating fifty thousand dollars, and interest notes maturing semi-annually. The notes were made payable ten years after date, or sooner, at the option of the maker. These notes were delivered to persons holding indebtedness against the Times, and in payment of the property so purchased by Chambers. A stipulation in the deed of trust is that in case of default in the payment of any of the interest notes, then
A receiver was appointed and directed to continue the publication of the paper for the time, and the other defendants were enjoined from publishing a paper under that name, and the trustee was enjoined from further advertising the property for sale under the deed of trust. The property was sold by the receiver, by order of the court, on the eighth of February, 1881, for $24,550, and the sale was duly confirmed. On final hearing the injunction was made perpetual, and the deed of trust foreclosed. The .court found that plaintiff owned principal notes to the amount of $28,666.66, and the defendant, Anna M. Buchanan, owned the remainder, amounting to $21,333.83. In other respects the decree was in accordance with these findings.
The defendants, Anna M. Buchanan and the trustee, Donovan, filed long answers, and a vast amount “of testimony was taken, disclosing the history of the newspaper and its troubles. Much of the evidence tends to show that the plaintiff acquired these notes and other debts in order to get control of the paper. The fact, however, remains undisputed that he became the legitimate •owner of the notes, and that default was made in the payment of the interest thereon. He, therefore, had a perfect right to foreclose the deed of trust. The foreclosure of the deed of trust by proceedings in court upon property of the character of that here in question, and
This evidence, aside from the suspicion naturally attached to-it, is not disputed.- It is also supported to
The trustee, Donovan, took possession of the paper, ■or, at least, a part of the property, on December 31,1881, ■and held such possession for eight or twelve days, until the receiver was appointed, having at the same time advertised the same for sale because of the unpaid notes held by Mrs. Buchanan. He filed a claim for over four thousand dollars for services, etc., and the court allowed him two hundred and seventy-five dollars, which, from his own testimony, we are satisfied was fair enough.'
The judgment, from which all the parties appealed, is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.