St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 83 Mo. 476
• Parties: THE ST. FRANCIS MILL COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. SUGG et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 Mo. 476

THE ST. FRANCIS MILL COMPANY et al., Appellants,

v.SUGG et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court.--HON. R. P. OWEN, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

W. H. Clopton for appellants.

The costs in this case are properly recoverable of the heirs of Wylie P. Sugg. They were the only defendants in the proceedings by the creditors to set aside the fraudulent deed, and the court decreed that plaintiffs should recover their costs; which meant only those costs that are taxable under the statute, and it is only the taxable costs for which execution was issued. The costs of bringing the property into the estate of W. S. Sugg--such as traveling expenses, etc.-- were proved and allowed against the estate of W. S. Sugg.

No brief for respondent.

EWING, C.

The record in this case is in almost inextricable confusion, but as far as I can understand it, it appears that the original proceeding by the plaintiff was to cancel and declare void certain conveyances of land by the defendants, in fraud of the plaintiffs, who were creditors. The decree in that case was for plaintiffs, as to certain of the land, but excepted certain other of the land which was described, and judgment for costs in favor of the plaintiffs. Execution was sued out and levied on the land excepted in the decree, and thereupon the defendants filed a motion to quash, for the following reasons:

1. “The whole amount of said execution has been fully paid before the issuance thereof.

2. Said execution does not follow, and is not authorized by the judgment on which it purports to be issued.

3. Said execution is against the property of a deceased person.

4. Said execution is for costs not authorized by law or the judgment aforesaid, and illegally taxed, and, without authority of law, charged against defendants; that after paying the costs, the party who paid them, to-wit: George Rogers, took no assignment of the judgment for costs, but presented his claim therefor to the probate court, and obtained and now holds a judgment of allowance therefor, which is of record and in full force, and these reasons have already been passed upon and adjudicated by the court.”

The return of the sheriff shows a sale for $272.25, which was paid to the sheriff. In support of the motion to quash, Baldwin, the clerk of the court, testified that he issued the execution referred to in the motion to quash. All the costs for which said execution issued had been paid to him as such clerk, by George...