Rawlings v. Anderson

28 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. Magnolia Bank

    48 So. 2d 515 (Miss. 1950)   Cited 11 times

    Counsel for the appellee in filing the special demurrer apparently concede that the sale of the property involved in this suit was not made in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 2167 Code 1930, but took the position in said special demurrer that the mortgagor waived compliance therewith by virtue of having executed a mortgage containing a provision therein that the property in Pike County might be sold at Magnolia and that the property in Walthall County might be sold at Tylertown. Counsel apparently relies upon the case of Baker v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 18 So.2d 440; Brown v. British American Mortgage Co., 86 Miss. 388, 38 So. 312; Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Hamilton v. Federal Land Bank, 186 So. 832. Each of these cases, however, deals with the question that there may be a waiver of the provisions of law relating to the manner in which the sale is to be made, as to whether same is required to be made first in subdivisions and then as a whole or not.

  2. Hamilton v. Federal Land Bank

    186 So. 832 (Miss. 1939)   Cited 14 times
    In Hamilton v. Federal Land Bank, 184 Miss. 878, 882, 186 So. 832, 833 (1939), preliminary to foreclosure, the secured creditor appointed one of its own employees as substituted trustee.

    The record shows that under the terms of the contract in the deed of trust "the above named trustee, or any successor appointed in his place, shall sell said property or sufficiency thereof to satisfy the indebtedness of the aforesaid, then unpaid;" and that under the terms of the contract that it was the duty of J.E. Shirley to offer said property at the foreclosure sale in subdivisions or different parcels, all of which the said trustee wholly failed to do, which breach of said contract was sufficient within itself to void said sale. Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Land Cattle Co. v. Federal Land Bank, 167 Miss. 808. The positive evidence of appellants shows conclusively that the sale of the property was improperly conducted in that there was no competitive bidding by any person, that the sale was made only in the presence of the substituted trustee and appellants, that no bid was made on the property in the manner and form as required by law.

  3. Lee v. Lee

    236 Miss. 260 (Miss. 1959)   Cited 9 times

    Breed O. Mounger, Tylertown; Emmette P. Allen, Brookhaven, for appellees. I. The conveyance from Henry Mounger, Jr. to Mrs. Annie Louise Mounger was not a valid conveyance but was utterly void. Bailey v. Dilworth, 10 Sm. M. 404, 48 Am. Dec. 760; Brandau v. Greer, 95 Miss. 100, 48 So. 519; Brockett v. Richardson, 61 Miss. 766; Clark v. Rainey, 72 Miss. 151, 16 So. 499; Deanes v. Whitfield, 107 Miss. 273, 65 So. 246; Fox v. Coon, 64 Miss. 465, 1 So. 629; Hamblett v. Harrison, 80 Miss. 118, 31 So. 580; Rawlings v. Anderson, 115 So. 714; Robinson v. Lewis, 68 Miss. 71, 8 So. 258, 10 L.R.A. 101, 24 Am. St. Rep. 254; Smith v. Beard, 128 Miss. 1, 90 So. 592; Walker v. Woods, 144 So. 703, 148 So. 354; Whitfield v. Miles, 101 Miss. 734, 58 So. 8; Wise v. Hyatt, 68 Miss. 714, 10 So. 37; 37 Am. Jur., Mortgages, Sec. 674 p. 124. II. The conveyance from Mrs. Henry Mounger, Jr. to the appellant was the acquisition of an adverse claim of record and amounted to nothing more than a redemption for the benefit of all the co-tenants.

  4. McAllister, et al. v. Byrd

    55 So. 2d 435 (Miss. 1951)   Cited 2 times

    A. The land was not sold in parcels under the terms of the deed of trust. Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Hamilton, et al. v. Federal Land Bank, 184 Miss. 878, 186 So. 832. B. The land was not sold in accord with the statutory scheme, making provision where the deed of trust is silent as to the manner of sale, etc. Secs. 891, 1925 Code 1942.

  5. Texas Pac. C. O. Co. v. Mulvihill

    200 Miss. 497 (Miss. 1946)   Cited 3 times

    Since Section 888 is inapplicable, then necessarily Section 111 does not apply. Provine v. Thornton, 92 Miss. 395, 46 So. 950; McClusky v. Trussel, 90 Miss. 544, 44 So. 69; Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Lakeholm Land Cattle Co. v. Federal Land Bank, 167 Miss. 808, 150 So. 200; Brown v. British American Mortgage Co., 86 Miss. 388, 38 So. 312; Baker v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 196 Miss. 701, 18 So.2d 438; Lamerson v. Marvin, 8 Barb. (N.Y.) 9; Code of 1942, Sec. 888; Constitution of 1890, Sec. 111; 37 Am. Jur. 137, Sec. 692; L.R.A. 1917B, 527, note. The immediate purchaser at a foreclosure sale is chargeable with constructive notice of defects and irregularities in the sale which could have been discovered by the exercise of careful attention and diligent inquiry.

  6. Federal Land Bank v. Miller

    25 So. 2d 11 (Miss. 1946)   Cited 8 times

    The notice of sale was legal and valid in every respect, but regardless of its legality and validity, no issue thereof was raised by the pleadings, and the sufficiency of the notice of sale is not a proper question for the court to decide in this case. Jones et al. v. Frank et al., 123 Miss. 280, 85 So. 310; Graham v. Fitts, 53 Miss. 307; Enochs v. Miller, 60 Miss. 19; McCaughn v. Young, supra; Rawlings v. Anderson et al., 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Cox v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 88 Miss. 88, 40 So. 739; Smith et al. v. Allbright et al., 279 S.W. 852; Perdue et al. v. Davis et al., 10 S.W.2d 558; Loveland v. Clark, 11 Colo. 265, 18 P. 544; 41 C.J. 950; Sec. 1387. The court should follow its previous decisions in the Hamilton, McLendon and Hull cases upholding the validity of the provision in the Federal Land Bank deed of trust authorizing the substitution of a trustee.

  7. Baker v. Conn. General Life Ins. Co.

    196 Miss. 701 (Miss. 1944)   Cited 17 times

    This requirement was also waived by appellant, who attended the trustee's sale and failed to make any objection whatever as to the manner in which the sale was actually held. Brown v. British American Mortgage Co. et al., 86 Miss. 388, 38 So. 312; Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714; Hamilton v. Federal Land Bank, 184 Miss. 878, 186 So. 832. The recitation of the trustee's deed recites that the offer of sale was made in the manner provided by law.

  8. Kelso v. Robinson

    172 Miss. 828 (Miss. 1935)   Cited 58 times
    In Kelso v. Robinson, 172 Miss. 828, 161 So. 135, as to equitable estoppel, this Court said: "Estoppel may arise from misleading silence or passive conduct joined with a duty to speak.

    It may be stated as a general rule that if a person having a right, and seeing another person about to commit, or in the course of committing, an act infringing upon that right, stands by in such a manner as really to induce the person committing the act, and who might otherwise have abstained from it, to believe that he assents to its being committed, he cannot afterwards be heard to complain of the act. XI Am. Eng. Ency. (2 Ed.), pages 428 and 430; 10 R.C.L., Estoppel, page 759; 28 Am. Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), page 809; Georgia Pacific Ry. Co. v. Strickland, 80 Ga. 776, 12 Am. St.Rep. 282, 284; Kelly v. Skates, 117 Miss. 886, 78 So. 945; Chandler v. Peters, 44 S.W. 867; Cooley's Const. Lims. (7 Ed.) 250; Brown v. British American Mort. Co., 86 Miss. 388, 38 So. 312; Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714, 716. The court was in error in setting aside the sale, giving any relief to the complainant, and in decreeing possession of the land to Robinson.

  9. Land Cattle Co. v. Fed. Land Bank

    167 Miss. 808 (Miss. 1933)   Cited 2 times

    It was the duty of the trustee to sell the land in parcels and not in bulk. Rawlings v. Anderson, 115 So. 114, 149 Miss. 632. We submit to the court that what was done by the trustee in making this resale en masse is supported by neither section 111 of the Constitution of Mississippi of 1890, nor by section 2167 of the Code of Mississippi of 1930.

  10. Genesis Air, LLC v. U.S.

    CAUSE NO. 1:09-CV-308-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Aug. 1, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    The trustee is the agent of both parties. Lee v. Lee, 236 Miss. 260, 109 So.2d 870 (1959); Rawlings v. Anderson, 149 Miss. 632, 115 So. 714 (1928). In a deed of trust the trustee is under a duty to perform his duties in good faith and act fairly to protect the rights of all parties equally.Webb v. Biles, 192 Miss. 474, 6 So.2d 117 (1942).