State ex rel. Wakefield v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 77 Mo. 589 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. WAKEFIELD v. RICHARDSON et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Jasper Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH CRAVENS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Jas. M. Richardson and F. P. Wright for plaintiffs in error.
Harding & Buller for defendant in error.
This suit was instituted in the circuit court of Jasper county, at the relation of Thomas Wakefield, collector for said county, for the recovery of back taxes for the years 1874, 1875 and 1876, assessed upon lot 494 in the city of Carthage, aggregating the sum of $31. The petition is in usual form, and avers that said Wakefield is the collector of said county, and that the taxes for said years remain due and unpaid, and asks judgment for the amount with ten per cent interest, to be enforced as a lien upon said lot. It is also averred that said Wakefield had agreed in writing with the attorneys bringing said suit, which had been approved by the county court, that they were to receive ten per cent as their fee on amount of taxes collected, to be taxed as costs. It is also averred that defendant Alyen is the owner of said real estate, and that defendant Richardson claimed some interest therein, the extent of which was unknown to plaintiff. The answer was a general denial.
The cause was tried and the issues submitted to a jury and a verdict returned for plaintiff, upon which judgment was rendered according to the prayer of the petition, from which defendants have prosecuted a writ of error to this court, and the first point relied upon for a reversal of the judgment is, that there was no evidence that Wakefield was the collector of Jasper county. This point must be ruled against the defendants for the reason that plaintiff introduced in evidence, without objection from defendants, a back-tax bill issued and certified to on the 28th day of May, 1878, by said Wakefield, as collector of Jasper county, showing the amount of taxes sued for. If defendants intended to controvert the authority of said Wakefield, as collector, when this paper was offered in evidence, showing that Wakefield was in fact acting as collector, an objection should then have been interposed, and their failure to do so is fatal to the objection made by counsel. If, on the trial, evidence had been offered and received without objection of verbal declarations made by Wakefield that he was collector of Jasper county and was so acting, such declarations would at the least be some evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
...Mo. 43; Gaines v. Fender, 82 Mo. 497; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 120; State v. Emory, 79 Mo. 461; State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294; Wakefield v. Richardson, 77 Mo. 589; Anthony v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 18; Rucker Rucker, 59 Mo. 17; Matlock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; Wetherall v. Harris, 51 Mo. 65; Brady......
-
Pitts v. Sheriff
...by the motion for a new trial. Vineyard v. Matney, 68 Mo. 105; Hulett v. Nugent, 68 Mo. 474; Snell v. Harrison, 83 Mo. 652; Wakefield v. Richardson, 77 Mo. 589; Atkinson v. Dixon, 96 Mo. 582; Simpson Schulte, 21 Mo.App. 639; Connelly v. Ben. Soc., 43 Mo.App. 286. But there was no error in t......
-
Harwell v. Magill
... ... cause of action based on a public statute of the State, it is ... immaterial that it does not mention the statute. Blair v ... theory upon appeal. State ex rel. v. Kelly, 131 ... S.W.2d 371. (d) Defendants in their answer asked the ... 4; Hill v. Alexander, ... 77 Mo. 296; State ex rel. Wakefield v. Richardson, ... 77 Mo. 589; Berman v. Hoke, 61 Mo.App. 376. It is ... ...
-
White v. Caldwell
... ... 428; Burdsal v. Davies, 58 Mo. 138; Cox v. Moss, 53 Mo. 432; State v. Koerner, 51 Mo. 174. It does not perform the office of calling the ... Williams, 59 Mo. 105; State ex rel. v. Richardson, 77 Mo. 589; Anthony v. Railroad Co., 76 Mo. 18), or ... ...