Hickox v. McKinley, 24613.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Writing for the Court | Seddon |
Citation | 278 S.W. 671 |
Parties | HICKOX v. McKINLEY et al. |
Docket Number | No. 24613.,24613. |
Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; M. Hartmann, Judge.
Application by Lee Hickox for a writ of scire facias against Robert E. McKinley and others to revive a judgment. From an order granting the writ, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Arthur E. Simpson, of St. Louis, for appellants.
S. T. G. Smith and Gustave A. Stamm, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, rendered December 11, 1922, reviving a judgment against appellants rendered in said court on April 12, 1915. Application by respondent for a writ of scire facias to revive said original judgment was filed on March 29, 1918. A writ of scire facias was issued on April 1, 1918, directed to appellants Robert E. McKinley and Samuel J. McKinley and one Julius H. Brinkmeyer, a defendant in the original action, returnable to the June, 1918, term of said circuit court. On October 25, 1918, respondent filed an amended application, making the appellant Charles F. McKinley a party, and on October 28, 1918, a writ of scire facias was issued to said Charles F. McKinley, returnable to the December, 1918, term of said court.
The original judgment of April 12, 1915, was rendered in an action brought by respondent herein, Lee Hickox, as plaintiff, against appellants herein, Robert E. McKinley, Samuel J. McKinley, and Charles F. McKinley and said Julius H. Brinkmeyer, as defendants, upon a promissory note executed by said defendants and delivered to the respondent herein, Lee Hickox. Said original judgment recites:
The appellants herein, in due time, filed their respective answers or returns to the writs of scire facias issued to revive the original judgment, alleging, as a defense thereto:
"That said judgment has been wholly discharged, extinguished, and paid, in that in said judgment it was decreed and adjudged that the indebteness on account of which said judgment was rendered was secured by a pledge of 1,238¾ shares of the capital stock of the Borden Varnish Company, a Missouri corporation, each share having a par value of $10, the certificates of stock having been delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the note on account of which this suit was brought, and that said indebtedness, together with the interest thereon and the costs of this suit, were and constituted a valid and subsisting lien upon said certificates of stock, and that defendants were, by said judgment, foreclosed of all interest, right, and equity of redemption in the certificates of stock aforesaid, and that said judgment be levied out of said shares of stock; that, disregarding said judgment, the plaintiff failed to levy the said judgment out of said shares of stock, although said shares of stock were at the time worth far more than the amount of such judgment, with interest and costs, and that the said plaintiff retained and converted said stock to his own use as a discharge and extinguishment and payment of said judgment."
The respondent thereupon demurred to the answers of appellants on the ground that the facts set up therein are not sufficient to constitute a defense to said writs of scire facias, and that said facts do not constitute a discharge or satisfaction of said original judgment. The circuit court sustained the demurrers to the answers, and, the defendants declining to plead farther, the original judgment was revived on March 20, 1919, and the defendants prosecuted an appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Thereafter, on January 8, 1920, Julius Brinkmeyer paid $1,500 on said judgment, and plaintiff acknowledged satisfaction of said judgment as to said defendant only. On December 6, 1921, the St. Louis Court of Appeals filed an opinion, reversing the judgment of revival nisi and remanding the cause for a retrial. The St. Louis Court of Appeals held that the defendants' answers, alleging that the original judgment had been discharged, extinguished, and paid by reason of plaintiff's failure to obey the command of the judgment and foreclose the pledged shares of stock, pleaded a legal defense to the writs of scire facias. In its opinion (Hickox v. McKinley, 236 S. W. 1068, 1070), that court said:
After the remanding of the cause to the circuit court, the respondent filed a reply to the answers of appellants, alleging that the shares of stock of the Borden Varnish Company, referred to in said answers, were, at the time of the original judgment, and at all times since the date of said judgment, absolutely worthless and of no value, and that a levy thereon would have been useless and of no avail. At the beginning of the trial of this issue raised by the pleadings, and before the introduction of any evidence thereon, the appellants demanded a trial of the issue by a jury, and objected to a trial by the court without a jury. The trial court denied appellants' demand for a jury trial and overruled their objections to a trial of the issue by the court without a jury, exceptions to which rulings were duly saved by appellants.
Respondent thereupon offered evidence tending to show that the shares of stock of the Borden Varnish Company were valueless and worthless at the date of the original judgment and at all times subsequent thereto. Appellants, on the other hand, offered evidence tending to show that the shares of stock had, at said times, some substantial value. Appellants, at the close of the trial, requested the trial court to state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law. In the written conclusions of fact, the trial court found that no execution was issued upon the original judgment, and that respondent did not levy upon said shares of stock of the Borden Varnish Company as directed by the original judgment, but that said shares of stock were worthless at the time of the rendition of the original judgment on April 12, 1915, and continuously from that date. The court's conclusion of law was to the effect that, having found as a matter of fact that said shares of stock were, at said times, worthless and without value, there is no amount which appellants can have credited on said judgment. Judgment of revival...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker, 38447.
...party, and there was no occasion for a jury trial. Renshaw v. Reynold, 317 Mo. 484, 297 S.W. 374; Hickox v. McKinley, 311 Mo. 234, 278 S.W. 671; Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 306 Mo. 312, 267 S.W. 641; State ex inf. Major v. Arkansas Lbr. Co., 260 Mo. 212; State ex inf. Pulitzer Pub. Co. v.......
-
Hopkins v. Kurn, 38347.
...the Constitution is a substantial right. 35 C.J. 147; Kansas City v. Smith, 238 Mo. 323, 141 S.W. 1103; Hickox v. McKinley, 311 Mo. 234, 278 S.W. 671; Renshaw v. Reynolds, 317 Mo. 484, 297 S.W. 374. (10) Plaintiff's "right of action" and defendant's "liability" cannot be determined independ......
-
Campbell v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 36815
...there was no common-law right of trial by jury. Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 306 Mo. 328, 267 S.W. 641; Hickox v. McKinley, 311 Mo. 242, 278 S.W. 671; Renshaw v. Reynolds, 317 Mo. 487, 297 S.W. 374. (e) The contention of the appellant that the case cannot proceed without a plaintiff is bas......
-
Campbell v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 36815.
...there was no common-law right of trial by jury. Bates v. Comstock Realty Co., 306 Mo. 328, 267 S.W. 641; Hickox v. McKinley, 311 Mo. 242, 278 S.W. 671; Renshaw v. Reynolds, 317 Mo. 487, 297 S.W. 374. (e) The contention of the appellant that the case cannot proceed without a plaintiff is bas......