Sanders v. Rains

• Decision Date: 31 July 1847
• Citation: 10 Mo. 770
• Parties: SANDERS v. RAINS ET AL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 Mo. 770

SANDERS

v.RAINS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1847.

ERROR TO POLK CIRCUIT COURT.

OTTER & HENDRICK, for Plaintiff.

NAPTON, J.

Sanders brought an action of ejectment against the defendants in error to recover possession of a tract of land in Polk county. On the trial, he offered in evidence to show a title deed from the sheriff of the county, formally executed and acknowledged, reciting two judgments against Rains beiore a justice of the peace, with the executions and returns thereon, and the subsequent issuance of executions from the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court upon transcripts of these judgments properly filed in that office, and a levy and sale under these executions. The plaintiff also offered in evidence the execution and the transcript of one of these judgments before the justice. This testimony, it seems from the bill of exceptions, was offered en masse, and objections being made, the execution and transcript were excluded, upon what grounds the bill of exceptions does not show. The transcript from the justice's docket stated that in a suit by Caleb Jones & Co. v. Lawrence Rains, on a promissory note, drawn payable to plaintiffs, for $32 05, due one day after date, dated December 25th, 1841, with ten per cent. interest from date, a summons was issued on the 4th April, 1842, returnable the 9th inst.; that constable returned the summons indorsed “served by reading to defendant on the 4th April, 1842.” Thereupon, the defendant not appearing, it is considered that judgment be rendered against the defendant by default for $36 16, debt and interest, &c. The plaintiff took a non-suit in consequence of the rejection of his testimony, and afterwards made an unsuccessful motion to have it set aside.

Where the objections are made to the introduction of deeds or records, the objections should be stated specifically. In this case, the Circuit Court excluded all the plaintiff's title papers--the sheriff's deeds--the executions and the transcript--but whether objections were made to all these papers, or only one of them--whether their authenticity was denied, or their relevancy and competency questioned, is not shown by the bill of exceptions. It is more convenient in all cases that the bill of exceptions should clearly point out the precise points decided. In this case, we shall pass by this imperfection in the bill of exceptions, both because it is apparent that the case turned upon the transcript of the justice's judgment, and because our opinion upon that point will lead to the same conclusion as a decision upon the other.

The statute which establishes Justices' Courts and prescribes their powers and duties, requires the process by which defendants are to be notified of a suit to summons the defendant to appear at a time specified, not less than six days from the date of the writ. The summons issued by the justice against Rains, as appears from the transcript of the justice, was dated on the 4th and made returnable on the 9th of the month. It was therefore erroneous. Whether this error shall make the writ a nullity, is the only question involved in this case.

There is no doubt that a most decided inclination has been manifested by courts of justice to sustain the validity of judicial proceedings whenever they are questioned collaterally. Where titles have been acquired under judgments, or where the conduct of the officers concerned in the administration of justice has been called in question, great liberality has been evinced in order to sustain such judgments and to protect such officers. There are, however, limits which no court has ventured to overstep. Whilst a just and liberal protection should be extended to the officers of the law in the execution of their duties, and the rights of purchasers be favorably received, the rights of suitors must not be wholly overlooked. Where there is original or acquired jurisdiction in the course of the proceedings, the general rule is, that all errors must be corrected by the same court or by some superior tribunal, and the validity of the judgment will not be permitted to be questioned in a collateral way. Voorhees v. Bank United States, 10 Peters, 449. But it is equally reasonable, and just as well settled by repeated adjudications, that where there is no jurisdiction, the judgment is a nullity, and may be disputed collaterally or directly. Whether the officer who executes a writ founded on such judgment would be responsible or not, depends upon...