Megehe v. Draper

• Decision Date: 31 October 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 510
• Parties: MEGEHE, Respondent, v. DRAPER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 510

MEGEHE, Respondent,

v.DRAPER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1855.

1. A. sued B. for causing to be sold under an execution against A. certain property selected and claimed by A. as exempt from execution under the act of February 6, 1847, (see Sess. Acts, 1847, p. 52). Held that it is no defence to this action that A., at the time of the levy and sale, had other property, not specifically exempt from execution, more than sufficient to pay the debt, which he concealed from the officer, so as to keep it out of the reach of the execution.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Richmond and Allen, for appellant.

Harrison & Hawken, and Cooke, for respondent.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, Draper, caused the plaintiff's property to be levied upon under and by virtue of an execution. The plaintiff claimed the property, to the value of $150, as exempt from execution, under the act of the legislature, of February 6, 1847, and the property was duly appraised. The defendant afterwards caused the property to be sold under the execution, and this suit was brought for that wrong.

The defence relied upon is, that the plaintiff, at the time, had other property not specifically exempt from execution, more than sufficient in value to pay the debt, which he concealed from the officer, so as to keep it out of the reach of the execution.

Upon the plaintiff's motion, this part of the defendant's answer was stricken out, and the defendant excepted. Upon the trial, the defendant offered to prove the same matters before the jury; which proof was rejected, and the defendant excepted. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment thereon.

The defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he brings the case here by appeal.

1. The only matter for our consideration involves the act of the court below in rejecting the evidence on the trial, and in striking out the answer, or that part of the answer setting up the above matters in defence. If the court properly struck out that part of the answer, then it was proper also to reject the evidence in relation to the same subject matter.

This court is of opinion, that the matter set up in the defendant's answer was well stricken out. It affords no defence to the plaintiff's action. The statutes reserving and exempting certain specific property from execution, and property real, personal and...