Ashby v. Dillon
| Decision Date | 31 March 1854 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 619 |
| Parties | ASHBY, Respondent, v. DILLON & LESTER, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A note given to a constable for forbearance to levy an execution is void.
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
M. L. Gray, for appellant.
The note taken by the constable under color of his office, was given for an illegal consideration and is void. The duty of the constable was to levy the writ. The act of the constable was a criminal offence by statute. (R. C. 1845, p. 390-1, §§ 16, 17, 19, p. 506, § 38.) Transactions prohibited under a penalty are void. Chit. on Con., 695 and cases there cited. Again, the note is void by the general policy of the law. 2 Burr. 924; 6 Comyn's Dig. 2 W. 25, p. 384-5; 5 Mass. 385, 541; 4 ib. 370; 8 J. R. 98; 7 J. R. 159, 319, 426; 12 J. R. 207; 3 Thomas' Coke, 541; 17 Mo. 555.
P. E. Bland, for respondent.
The note was given for a sufficient and a legal consideration. It was perfectly competent for the officer, if he saw fit, to assume the liability which he incurred by a failure to levy the execution, and the note given by the execution debtor to indemnify him is valid. That the note is for double the amount of the execution debt does not affect its validity. The consideration was the risk incurred by the officer in forbearing to levy.
This was an action on a promissory note for eighty-one dollars and sixteen cents, by the respondent, Ashby, as assignee, against the appellants. The note was payable to John Bray, who was constable of Central township, in St. Louis county.
The facts are, that Bray, the constable, had an execution against the defendant, Dillon, and went to his house, on the day Dillon intended to have sale of some of his property, for the purpose of levying it. Dillon had a race horse which some of the witnesses say was worth a thousand dollars. Dillon directed the constable to levy on this horse, and in formed him that he would give a delivery bond for the forthcoming of the property on the day of sale. This the constable refused to do, and threatened to levy on the property about to be sold on that day, unless Dillon would give him a note, with security, for double the amount of the execution; that his purpose in having a sale might not be frustrated, Dillon executed the note sued on, with Lester as his security. The note was not returned with the execution, but was assigned as the private property of the constable to the plaintiff, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Weinberg
-
State ex rel. v. Weinberg and Am. Sur. Co., 19905.
...in the defense of the case, interest on the money held in the hands of the garnishee and expenses of attorneys. State to the Use v. Thomas, 19 Mo. 619; State to the Use v. Beldsmeir, 46 Mo. 266; Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Sauer, 65 Mo. 279, 289; State to the Use v. Fargo, 151 Mo. 280; State t......
-
Rollins v. Schawacker
... ... Sandford, 74 Mo.App. 187; Peck v. Harris, 57 ... Mo.App. 467; Railroad v. Morley, 45 Mo.App. 304; ... Swaggard v. Hancock, 25 Mo.App. 596; Ashby v ... Dillon, 19 Mo. 619. (2) The court erred in admitting ... testimony as to the contents of the alleged receipt claimed ... by plaintiff to ... ...
-
Holcomb v. Summitt
...policy and void. 13 C. J. p. 443, § 379; Harrington v. Crawford, 136 Mo. 467, 38 S. W. 80, 35 L. R. A. 477, 58 Am. St. Rep. 653; Ashby v. Dillon, 19 Mo. 619. There is a clear distinction, however, between cases in which the officer accepts securities in lieu of a levy without the consent of......