Easton v. Collier

• Decision Date: 30 April 1826
• Citation: 1 Mo. 603
• Parties: EASTON v. COLLIER, IMPLEADED WITH ROBBINS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 Mo. 603

EASTON

v.COLLIER, IMPLEADED WITH ROBBINS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1826.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CHARLES

TOMPKINS, J.

This cause, at the April term of this court, in 1824, was sent back to the Circuit Court of St. Charles county, the judgment of that court being reversed. The Circuit Court permitted the verdict of the jury, found before the reversal of its judgment, to be amended, and entered up a new judgment, nunc pro tunc, for the defendant in that court, on the verdict so amended. The plaintiff moved the court to enter up a judgment for himself, non obstante veredicto, which the court refused to do. The finding of the jury is in these words: “That after the recovery of the judgment, as in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration is mentioned, and before the return of any execution thereof against the said Prospect K. Robbins, and whilst a writ of execution was in the hands of the sheriff of said county, to-wit, on the first day of April, 1821, the said Robbins offered and was going to surrender his body to said sheriff in execution, according to the form and effect of said recognizance, and in discharge of his said bail, and the said Rufus Easton, in order to fix and charge the said bail, then and there fraudulently requested the said Robbins not to surrender himself thereon, and assured him that his only object in taking out execution was to continue the same, so as to prevent the necessity of reviving the same judgment by sci. fa. to-wit, at, &c. by means of which said request and representations, the said Robbins was then and there prevented from surrendering himself as aforesaid, in manner and form as the said George hath above, in his said plea alleged.” In the opinion of the court the issue found is immaterial; and for the reasons, see the opinion of Judge M'Girk, delivered in this case, on the plea here found true, at the April term of 1824;^(a) the other members of this court agreeing with him in opinion, it is not deemed necessary to say anything more about this verdict. On the other points, made by the counsel of Collier, to-wit, that the action was brought in the wrong county, and the discharge of Robbins, under the act passed for the benefit of insoluant debtors, the court has not been induced by argument to depart from the decisions heretofore made, between the same parties, in this court in similar cases. The case of Grove Cook and Callaway, decided in this court in October, 1825, is not in point. I...