Fortune v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 31 March 1856 |
| Citation | 23 Mo. 239 |
| Parties | FORTUNE, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, GARNISHEE OF DILLON, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The city of St. Louis is not subject to the process of garnishment.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Hudson & Thomas, for appellant.
W. L. Williams, for respondent, cited Hawthorn v. City of St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59; 6 Vermont, 121; 12 Conn. 404; 11 Conn. 124; 2 Mass. 37; 16 Id. 275; 7 Monr. 439.RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
James Fortune caused an execution to be issued on a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for St. Louis county, against John Dillon, and had the city of St. Louis summoned as garnishee. At the September term of said court in 1854, said Fortune caused a statement of the grounds on which he had ordered the city to be summoned as garnishee to be filed, and filed also interrogatories for the city to answer. The city demurred to the allegation and interrogatories; the court sustained the demurrer, and Fortune brings the case here by appeal. The question in this case falls within the principles of the decision heretofore made by this court in the case of Hawthorn v. City of St. Louis. (11 Mo. 60.) The counsel for the appellant attacks that decision, and urges this court to overrule it. He fails however to bring to the support of his argument any authority. We adhere to the principles laid down in that decision; and as this case is embraced by it, we will affirm the judgment. (2 Mass. 37; 12 Conn. 404; 6 Verm. 121; 7 Monroe, 439; 11 Conn. 124.)
The other judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The City of Clinton v. Henry County
... ... Cook Co. v. Chicago, 103 ... Ill. 646; Adams Co. v. Quincy, 130 Ill. 566; ... Hassan v. Rochester, 67 N.Y. 533; Schools v. St ... Louis, 26 Mo. 468. (2) The courts of this state have ... also distinguished between general taxation for revenue, for ... support of the government of ... nor are public officers subject to garnishment. Hawthorn ... v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59; Fortune v. St. Louis, ... 23 Mo. 239; Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 569; ... Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 5220. (4) Public property held ... for ... ...
-
State ex rel. English v. Trimble
...in affirming the judgment rendered below, contravenes controlling decisions of this court (Geist v. St. Louis, 156 Mo. 643; Fortune v. St. Louis, 23 Mo. 239; Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59), which announce the doctrine that a municipal corporation is not subject to garnishment process, ei......
-
State ex rel. English v. Trimble
... ... W. English and Bee Branch Drainage District v. Francis H. Trimble et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals No. 27875Supreme Court of MissouriOctober 2, 1928 ... Writ ... controlling decision of this court. Geist v. St ... Louis, 156 Mo. 643. (4) Under the opinion and record ... properly receivable in this action, the Court ... controlling decisions of this court (Geist v. St ... Louis, 156 Mo. 643; Fortune v. St. Louis, 23 ... Mo. 239; Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59), which ... announce the doctrine ... ...
-
State v. Rubey
...7 Mo. 194. The rights of the government are always held paramount to those of the citizen. Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59; Fortune v. St. Louis, 23 Mo. 239; 1 Dillon Munic. Corp., §§ 64, 65; R. S. 1879, §§ 2344, 2519. Of the moneys deposited, the county revenues are certainly the State's ......