Price v. Roetzell
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Citation | 56 Mo. 500 |
| Parties | HENRY PRICE, Appellant, v. MARY ROETZELL, Adm'x of HENRY ROETZELL, deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
H. B. Lighthizer, for Appellant.
E. C. Kehr, for Respondent.
This was a petition to enforce a landlord's lien for rent. The petition set out the facts to be, that the plaintiff had leased to one Roetzell, a farm in St. Louis County for three years, at a rent of $500 a year, to be paid on the 1st of Oct. of each year; that the lessee entered upon the premises under the lease and continued in possession until his death, which occurred in the latter part of Sept. 1871, a few days prior to the day when the first year's rent became due; that the rent was demanded of defendant, Mary or Margaret Roetzel, who was administratrix of the estate, but it was not paid; that during the year certain crops of corn and oats were raised on the farm; that these crops were in possession of defendant as administratrix; that the estate was insolvent and the defendant also; that the crops mentioned were of a perishable character and going to waste, and liable to deteriorate in value, unless immediately sold, and that unless summary process was granted for the enforcement of his lien as landlord on said crops, there was danger of his losing his rent. Wherefore plaintiff prayed the court for a judgment of lien against said crop, for the said sum of $500, and that said crops may be seized under attachment by the sheriff and sold, and the proceeds held subject to the further order of this court, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just, etc.
To this petition there is annexed an affidavit of said Price, that the amount of rent claimed is correctly stated, and that he has good reason to believe that the defendant intends to remove her property, to-wit: the crops belonging to the said estate, from the leased premises, and that unless an attachment be issued against said crops he will lose his rent.
Upon this petition and affidavit an attachment issued, and the sheriff returned that he had taken into custody the corn and oats raised on the place, and had furnished the defendant with a copy of the petition; that the property first seized was claimed by defendant and a bond given, and certain other property attached.
In December, 1871, the defendant pleaded that it was not true that she intended to remove her property or the property of her deceased husband, and upon this plea there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Davis v. Goodnow
...18 W. Va. 441. If the State had a lien on the attached property, attachment was not the remedy, but injunction or prohibition. Price v. Roetzell, 56 Mo. 500; Ware v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 500; Bank v. Kercheval, 65 Mo. 682. Where the statute gives a remedy, parties are restricted to it. Cooley on......
-
Haseltine v. Ausherman
...50 Mo. 154. (4) There was indeed no removal of the crop such as would endanger the collection of the rent, and none intended. Price v. Rotzel, 56 Mo. 500; Hubbard v. Moss, 65 Mo. 647. (5) The affidavit for attachment is wholly insufficient under the statute, and the proof fails to show that......
-
Hubbard v. Moss
...crop, under the provisions of said act, and during the continuance of such lien is void. Wag. Stat. p. 881, § 26, p. 880, § 18; Price v. Roetzell, 56 Mo. 500; Sanders v. Ohlhausen, 51 Mo. 163. II. The court had no authority, at a subsequent term after final judgment, to render another and d......
-
White v. Million
...not subject to execution in faver of any third party. Knox v. Hunt and Porter, 18 Mo. 243-6; Sandes v. Ohlhausen, 51 Mo. 163; Price v. Roetzell's Adm., 56 Mo. 500; v. Land, 88 Mo. 163; Bank v. Guthery, 127 Mo. 189; Holt v. Colyer et al., 71 Mo.App. 280; Lane v. Pollard, 11 Mo.App. 330; Whit......