Coonce v. Munday
| Decision Date | 30 June 1834 |
| Parties | COONCE v. MUNDAY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
M'GIRK, C. J.
Felix Coonce brought an action of ejectment against Munday for a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. It appears by the record that Alexander Scott and William K. Rule obtained a judgment before a Justice of the Peace against James Malloy, for the sum of ninety dollars and costs; which judgment was obtained on the 26th day of October, 1829, and that the plaintiff filed a transcript of the judgment and proceedings before the Justice of the Peace, in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the county of St. Louis. That the clerk issued an execution thereon, which execution was levied on the lot in question, which was sold as the property of Malloy. Scott and Rule became the purchasers, that they afterwards by deed sold the same property to Coonce, the present plaintiff. It does not appear by the transcript filed, that any execution had been issued by the justice before the execution had issued from the clerk as aforesaid. That in the execution issued by the clerk, he recites the fact that the transcript had been filed in his office, and that an execution had been issued by the justice of the peace, and that no goods or chattels had been found by the constable, and no satisfaction was had on the judgment of said justice. The clerk's execution therefore commands the sheriff to levy upon the lands and tenements of said Malloy. It appears also that Munday, the defendant, claims under Malloy. From this state of facts, the defendant's counsel prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover; which instruction was given, whereupon the defendant had judgment. The point raised in the instruction is this: whether the plaintiff must not prove upon the trial that an execution had issued by the justice of the peace upon the judgment by him rendered, before he was entitled to have execution on the same from the office of the Circuit Court. The plaintiff insists that if necessary, it sufficiently appears by the recital of it in the clerk's execution. He insists again that it need no where appear in evidence, and if the fact was so, that no person can take advantage of it but the defendant in execution; and that he can only do it by motion in the Circuit Court to set aside the execution issued by the clerk. By the 30th section of the act respecting Justices' Courts, it is enacted that any person obtaining a judgment before a justice of the peace, for any sum above ten dollars, may file a transcript of such judgment in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of the county where the judgment was rendered, which shall from the time of filing of such transcript have the same lien on the real estate of the defendant as judgment rendered in the Circuit Court. Provided no execution shall issue out of the clerk's office until an execution shall have issued by said justice, and the constable or other person to whom the same may be directed as aforesaid, shall have returned that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowers v. Mo. Mutual Assn.
...under said article of the statute are subject to the provisions of the general insurance laws mentioned in the section. In Coonce v. Munday, 3 Mo. 373, 375, it is said: "It is a rule that that which is clearly implied by a statute, is as much a part of the statute as if the same were expres......
-
Bowers v. Missouri Mut. Ass'n
...under said article of the statute are subject to the provisions of the general insurance laws mentioned in the section. In Coonce v. Munday, 3 Mo. 373, 375, is said: "It is a rule that that which is clearly implied by a statute, is as much a part of the statute as if the same were expressed......
-
Norberg v. Montgomery
... ... not disqualify the accountant as the "accounting ... officer." Sec. 10933, R. S. 1939; State ex rel ... Coleman v. Blair, 245 Mo. 680; Coonce v ... Munday, 3 Mo. 373; State ex rel. O'Connor v ... Riedel, 329 Mo. 616, 46 S.W.2d 131; Bowers v. Mo ... Mut. Assn., 333 Mo. 492, 62 S.W.2d ... ...
-
The State ex rel. McCaffery v. Mason
...therein. [State ex rel. v. Board of Equalization, 108 Mo. 235, 18 S.W. 782; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S.W. 457; Coonce v. Munday, 3 Mo. 373; Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Marion Co., 36 Mo. Sutherland Stat. Constr., sec. 334.] In the second place it is insisted that the Nesb......