Sickles v. McManus
| Decision Date | 31 October 1857 |
| Parties | SICKLES et al., Respondents, v. MCMANUS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An action upon an administrator's bond must be brought in the name of the state.
Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court.
Noell, for appellants.
Bay, for respondents.
This record abounds in errors, but it is unnecessary to notice them. The judgment must be reversed, though the execution of the bond had been proved or even admitted on the trial, because the action on the administrator's bond, in which the state was the obligee, can not be maintained in the name of the plaintiff. This point has been expressly decided in the case of the State to the use, &c., v. Moore, 19 Mo. 369.
The judgment is reversed, the other judges concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Hitch v. Stonebraker
... ... Hobart, 74 Me. 416; Bauer v. Cabanne, 105 Mo ... 110; Nofsinger v. Hartnett, 84 Mo. 549; Meier v ... Lester, 21 Mo. 112; Sickles v. McManus, 26 Mo ... 28. (2) The plaintiff, Garner B. Hitch, was plainly not ... entitled to judgment in this case, because George B. Johnston ... ...
-
Zellars v. National Surety Co.
... ... Suit cannot be ... maintained in any other name. State v. Moore, 19 Mo ... 371; Meier v. Lester, 21 Mo. 112; Sickles v ... McMannus, 26 Mo. 28; Mitchell v. Williams, 27 ... Mo. 399; Miller v. Wall, 27 Mo. 440; Woodworth ... v. Woodworth, 70 Mo. 603; Beck ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Williams
...the defendant's accounts. If the suit is on the bond it can not be maintained, because it is not in the name of the state (Sickles v. McManus, 26 Mo. 28), and because in that form of action the settlements of the guardian are conclusive. (State, to use of Tourville, v. Roland, 23 Mo. 95.) B......
- Leimer v. Pacific R.R.