Acock v. Stuart

• Decision Date: 31 July 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 150
• Parties: LUCY A. ACOCK, Defendant in Error, v. RICHARD STUART, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 150

LUCY A. ACOCK, Defendant in Error,

v.RICHARD STUART, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1874.

Wright & Johnson, for Plaintiff in Error, cited in argument, Wagn. Stat., 601; Crittenden vs. Leitensdorfer, 35 Mo., 239.

John S. Phelps, for Defendant in Error.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment for several hundred acres of land situated in Polk county.

Both parties claim title under Esau Stuart, the plaintiff, by virtue of two sheriffs' deeds, and the defendant by a subsequent deed from Esau Stuart, who was the defendant in the execution sales, and sheriffs' deeds under which the plaintiff claims.

The only material question raised and discussed here, is whether the sheriff's deeds recited properly the judgment and executions, and whether such executions corresponded with the judgment that had been rendered by the Polk Circuit Court against Esau Stuart.

The two sheriff's deeds recited substantially that the executions were issued on a judgment in favor of James Atkinson and Benjamin F. Acock, as administrators of Robert E. Acock deceased, rendered on the 21st day of October, 1863, for $2,577.30 debt, and $500 damages against Esau Stuart.

After the plaintiff had closed her case by reading the sheriff's deed and proof of damages, the defendant read the entry of the judgment, from the record, which was rendered on the 21st of October, 1863, and it was agreed that this was the judgment referred to in the sheriff's deeds, and was the only judgment against Esau Stuart. The judgment as entered, is for $2,577.30 debt and $500 damages, and is in the following form:

“Atkinson and Acock

)

vs.

)

Civil action.

Esau Stuart.

)

Now at this day come the plaintiffs, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the writ of summons has been duly served, etc.” The entry then proceeds to render up a regular judgment against the defendant, Esau Stuart. The defendant then read the executions under which the sheriff's sales and deeds were made, which appear to have issued on a judgment for the same amount and of the same date as this above, but recite the judgment as being in favor of the plaintiffs as administrators of Robert E. Acock, deceased.

One of the executions further recites that the letters of administration of Acock and Atkinson had been revoked, and that execution had been ordered to issue on this judgment in the name of Millikan, as public administrator of Polk county, having charge of the estate of Robert E. Acock, deceased.

The plaintiff then read an entry from the records, which recited that a judgment had been rendered on the 21st day of ...