Salisbury v. Salisbury, No. 19103.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtRoy
Citation274 Mo. 180,202 S.W. 529
PartiesSALISBURY v. SALISBURY et al.
Docket NumberNo. 19103.
Decision Date09 April 1918
202 S.W. 529
274 Mo. 180
SALISBURY
v.
SALISBURY et al.
No. 19103.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
April 9, 1918.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Kent K. Koerner, Judge.

Suit by Carolina Salisbury against Francis O. Salisbury and others. Decree dismissing the bill, and plaintiff appeals. Decree sustained.

This is a suit to enjoin the sale of land under execution. The bill was dismissed, and plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff and Francis O. Salisbury, one of the defendants, are husband and wife, and are residents of St. Louis. The other two defendants are residents of Dent county, of which said Gibbs is sheriff. Plaintiff furnished her husband with money to buy for her some Dent county land. He did so, but fraudulently took the title in his own name. He got in debt to defendant Duggan, and she recovered judgment for it against him in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in April, 1914. Execution was issued on that judgment directed to defendant Gibbs as sheriff of Dent county and was levied on the land. Plaintiff then sued her husband in Dent county to divest him of title to the land and to vest it in herself. The husband entered his voluntary appearance therein, but filed no answer. The decree was in accordance with the petition.

Thereupon plaintiff brought this suit in the circuit court of St. Louis to enjoin the sale of the land under that execution. The petition charges that defendants Duggan and Francis O. Salisbury are acting together in the attempt to sell said land under said execution.

The answer of defendant Duggan contained the following:

"First. Questions the jurisdiction of the court over the person of Mary E. Duggan in this cause for the reason that she, the said Mary E. Duggan, is a resident of Dent county, Mo., and was a resident of said county at the date of the filing of plaintiff's bill, and that the plaintiff is a resident of the city of St. Louis, Mo., and that G. W. Gibbs, the sheriff of Dent county, Mo., is a resident of Dent county, and that the plaintiff fraudulently and unlawfully joined her husband, Francis O. Salisbury, as a party defendant in this action for the sole and only purpose of seeking to acquire jurisdiction over the person of this defendant, Mary E. Duggan, and her codefendant, G. V. Gibbs, sheriff of Dent county; and that there is no joint interest or liability existing between the said defendants, Francis O. Salisbury and Mary E. Duggan, and the said G. W. Gibbs, sheriff of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 de março de 1936
    ...liability several, such misjoinder exists. Sec. 701, R.S. 1929; Bracht v. Johnson, 187 Mo. App. 220, 173 S.W. 692; Salisbury v. Salisbury, 274 Mo. 180, 202 S.W. 529; Watts v. Meyer, 189 S.W. 29; Cases cited, Point 1(a); 5 Stand. Encyc. of Practice, 502; 13 C.J. 834; Thompson v. Hibbs, 45 Or......
1 cases
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 de março de 1936
    ...liability several, such misjoinder exists. Sec. 701, R.S. 1929; Bracht v. Johnson, 187 Mo. App. 220, 173 S.W. 692; Salisbury v. Salisbury, 274 Mo. 180, 202 S.W. 529; Watts v. Meyer, 189 S.W. 29; Cases cited, Point 1(a); 5 Stand. Encyc. of Practice, 502; 13 C.J. 834; Thompson v. Hibbs, 45 Or......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT