Caldwell v. Fea
| Decision Date | 31 October 1873 |
| Citation | 54 Mo. 55 |
| Parties | JOSIAH CALDWELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOSEPH FEA, et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Washington Circuit Court.
G. J. Van Allen, for Plaintiff in Error.
Reynolds & Relfe, for Defendants in Error.
This case comes up here in consequence of the court below sustaining a motion to quash an execution issued on the transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace.
The action before the justice was entitled Josiah Caldwell vs. Fea, Brother & Turnbull, as shown by the justice's docket, which recites the filing of an account for $50 on the 16th day of November, 1872, the issuance of a summons, returnable on the 2nd day of December next following, the rendition of a judgment by default against the three defendants, “as a firm,”
There were two transcripts filed by the justice, the first on the last mentioned date, and the second on the 29th of the same month. Both transcripts follow the recitals of the docket in every respect, except that the second transcript shows of whom the firm of Fea, Brother & Turnbull was composed, recites a judgment by default only against Joseph Fea and William Turnbull, directs the issuance of an execution to the constable (naming him) to run for 60 days, and states, that such execution was, March 1st, 1873, by the constable, (naming him,) returned no goods or chattels found, but does not state at what time the execution issued, while the first transcript shows, that the execution issued December, 1872, to run 60 days, and was returned March 1st, no goods or chattels found, and recites the judgment by default against the defendants as a firm, or against the two defendants, who are mentioned in the justice's docket as having been personally served.
The execution, sought to be quashed, recited a judgment recovered before the justice by Josiah Caldwell against Thomas Fea, Joseph Fea and William Turnbull, composing the firm of Fea, Brother & Turnbull, on the 2nd day of December 1872; the issuance of an execution on that day, the return of the same March 1st, 1873; no goods and chattels found by the constable to whom the same was directed, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing v. Donnelly
...Mo., art. 6, sect. 23; Dillon v. Rash, 27 Mo. 243; Bain v. Chrisman, 27 Mo. 293; Ruby v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 39 Mo. 480; Caldwell v. Fea, 54 Mo. 55. Unless the plaintiff took all the necessary steps before process issued, to give the justice jurisdiction of the subject matter of t......
-
Hopson v. Hellums
...of authority is that an instrument is not issued until it has been delivered and has become effective. 45 N.E. 804, 16 Ind.App. 565; 54 Mo. 55-59; 26 N.Y.S. 98-100, 73 Hun. 102 F. 57; 35 P.19; 52 Kan. 521; 22 N.E. 24, 114 N.Y. 518; 114 F. 441; 21 S.E. 912, 116 N.C. 466; 16 S.E. 919, 112 N.C......
-
Winn v. Madden
...in a collateral proceeding. Therefore, the court erred in excluding it when offered by appellant. Sect. 3011, Rev. Stat. Mo., 1879; Caldwell v. Fea, 54 Mo. 55; Holtzhom v. Meer, 59 Mo. 434; Davis v. Kline, 76 Mo. 310. III. The title to the assigned property was not passed until the deed of ......
-
Cooksey v. Crooks
...of the sale to plaintiffs. Proceedings before justices of the peace are regarded liberally as to forms by the policy of the law. Caldwell v. Fea, 54 Mo. 55; Harrington v. Fortner, 58 Mo. 468; Iba Railroad, 45 Mo. 469; City of Kansas v. Johnson, 78 Mo. 665: Apitz v. Railroad, 17 Mo.App. 419.......