Jarbee v. Steamboat Daniel Hillman

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GAMBLE
• Citation: Jarbee v. Steamboat Daniel Hillman, 19 Mo. 141 (Mo. 1853)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1853
• Parties: JARBEE & BELT, Defendants in Error, v. STEAMBOAT DANIEL HILLMAN, Plaintiff in Error.

19 Mo. 141

JARBEE & BELT, Defendants in Error,

v.STEAMBOAT DANIEL HILLMAN, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1853.

1. A warrant against a boat issued in the name of one of the plaintiffs only. Upon a motion, filed after the seizure and sale of the boat, to quash the writ and all proceedings, held, that the writ might be amended and would be considered as amended. Jones v. Cox, 7 Mo. 173, affirmed.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

C. B. Lord, for plaintiff in error.

Hudson & Thomas, for defendants in error.

GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs filed their petition against the Daniel Hillman, and on that petition, the clerk issued a warrant in the name of Belt alone. The boat was seized and sold, and some of the creditors proved their claims, when a motion was made to set aside the order of sale and all proceedings for the alleged irregularity in the writ, it being in the name of only one of the plaintiffs. The court overruled the motion and the plaintiffs excepted, and bring the case here.

1. The case of Jones v. Cox and others, 7 Mo. 173, presented the same question on a motion to quash a writ, and there it was held, that such defect was amendable, and the motion properly overruled. It is said in that case: “If a variance between the declaration and writ can be taken advantage of at all, it is not seen upon...