Day v. Kerr
| Decision Date | 31 May 1842 |
| Citation | 7 Mo. 426 |
| Parties | DAY v. KERR. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
ALLEN, for Plaintiff.
SPALDING & TIFFANY, for Defendant.
This is an action of ejectment, brought by Matthew Kerr, Against Charles Day, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county. Judgment was rendered for Kerr, and to reverse the judgment this writ of error is prosecuted. The record shows that in the year 1807, Adam Woolfort was in possession of the lot for which this action was brought, and that he died possessed in the year 1816, leaving a widow, Nancy Woolfort, and three children, Henry, Ann, and Minerva, who were minors; that in 1818 a suit was commenced in chancery against the widow, and the minor children, heirs of said Woolfort, and that the writ was returned to the August term of that year. The sheriff's return was in the words following: At the same term of the same year, and on the 24th day of August, 1818, an order was made in the said cause in the words following, to-wit: and the Chancellor under the State government decreed the title in the property to Kerr, the plaintiff in this cause. The defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that no title passed out of the minor heirs of Adam Woolfort by this decree of the court of chancery in favor of Matthew Kerr. It is insisted by the plaintiff in error that, as no process was served in the chancery suit, which is the evidence of the title of the plaintiff in this cause, on the infants, and certainly note on Minerva, whose name is not even mentioned in the sheriff's return, the decree in Kerr's favor is a mere nullity; that the minors could not even move the court to appoint a guardian. However idle it may be for an officer to read a summons in chancery to an infant, it is conceded that it was his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Royston
... ... "Very respectfully submitted, ... "Gabe W. Cox, Sheriff and Trustee." ... On November 14, 1891, A. D. Scott and wife by a general warranty deed conveyed the same land to Royston, the defendant ... H. A. Kerr, for appellants. John C. Leopard, for respondents ... WOODSON, J. (after stating the facts as above) ... 1. Counsel for appellants insist that the circuit court of Daviess county acquired no jurisdiction over the parties plaintiff, nor of the subject-matter of ... ...
-
Scott v. Royston
... ... CHARLES T. ROYSTON et al Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division November 27, 1909 ... Appeal ... from Daviess Circuit Court. -- Hon. Frank Sheetz, Special ... ... Reversed and remanded ... H. A ... Kerr for appellants ... (1) ... That a judgment may be valid and binding, the court rendering ... it must have jurisdiction of the persons of the parties ... involved. A judgment without jurisdiction is void. Wyth ... v. Lang, 54 Mo.App. 147; Caffery v. Mining Co., ... 95 ... ...
-
Westmeyer v. Gallenkamp
... ... process. And there are some early decisions in this State ... under the law as it existed prior to the adoption of [154 Mo ... 34] this partition proceeding and our practice act, that seem ... to give some countenance to this doctrine. [Day v ... Kerr, 7 Mo. 426; Hite v. Thompson, 18 Mo. 461; ... Shaw v. Gregoire, 35 Mo. 342.] But whatever footing ... it may once have had in this State, it has long since been ... thoroughly exploded, and by a long line of uniform and well ... considered cases, the doctrine has been well established, ... ...
-
Westmeyer v. Gallenkamp
...existed prior to the adoption of this partition proceeding and our practice act that seem to give some countenance to this doctrine. Day v. Kerr, 7 Mo. 426; Hite v. Thompson, 18 Mo. 461; Shaw v. Gregoire, 35 Mo. 342. But, whatever footing it may once have had in this state, it has long sinc......