## Facts

- A creditor obtained a judgment of about $1,966.69 against W. A. Brookshire, and the sheriff levied on Brookshire’s 322-acre farm.
- After the levy, Brookshire wrote the sheriff identifying a specific portion of the farm to sell, stating it could be divided and that the identified portion (valued by Brookshire at about $4,000) would satisfy the judgment, interest, and costs.
- Despite the request, the sheriff advertised and sold the entire 322-acre farm at a public execution sale on January 16, 1961.
- Bill Griggs purchased the farm for $20,600 and received a sheriff’s deed.
- Griggs filed an ejectment action seeking possession and damages for withholding possession.
- Brookshire counterclaimed in equity to set aside the execution sale and sheriff’s deed; the sheriff was added as a third-party defendant.
- The trial court upheld the sale and deed, awarded Griggs possession, and awarded damages for withholding possession (including a continuing monthly amount).
- After appeal was filed, Brookshire was incarcerated; George C. Miller was appointed trustee for Brookshire’s estate and substituted as the defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether it was improper under Missouri execution rules and equity for the sheriff to sell the entire 322-acre farm to satisfy a relatively small judgment when the debtor identified a portion allegedly sufficient to satisfy the execution.
2. Whether an ejectment petition is defective for failing to plead detailed title allegations and the deed under which the plaintiff claims, where the plaintiff has never been in possession.

## Decision

- The court reversed the decree insofar as it sustained the execution sale and sheriff’s deed.
- The court held it was inequitable and contrary to Missouri execution rules to sell the entire farm without attempting, where practicable, to divide the land and sell only so much as necessary after the debtor identified property to satisfy the execution.
- The court ordered cancellation of the sheriff’s sale and deed on the condition that the debtor’s estate do equity by reimbursing Griggs the purchase price (with appropriate adjustments), within a specified period.
- The court rejected the challenge to the ejectment petition’s sufficiency, holding that prior possession by the plaintiff is not required and detailed title pleading was not necessary on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- When a judgment debtor provides an execution officer a list or description of property sufficient to satisfy the execution, the officer should levy on that property and not on other property, unless the officer concludes it is insufficient.  
- When real estate is levied upon, the executing officer should, if practicable, divide the property and sell only as much as necessary to satisfy the judgment, unless the debtor desires the whole tract to be sold together.
- Courts of equity may set aside an execution sale conducted in a manner that is unfair or inconsistent with execution rules, particularly where the sale is excessive in relation to the judgment debt.
- Equitable cancellation of an execution deed may be conditioned on restitution to the execution purchaser under the principle that a party seeking equitable relief must reimburse amounts paid.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court granted equitable relief from an excessive execution sale by canceling the sheriff’s sale and deed where the sheriff sold an entire farm to satisfy a small judgment despite the debtor’s request to sell only a sufficient portion, while protecting the purchaser by conditioning cancellation on reimbursement; the court also held that ejectment does not require the plaintiff to have been in prior possession or to plead detailed title beyond alleging ownership and right to possession.


Griggs v. Miller, 374 S.W.2d 119 (Mo. 1963)