Wonderly v. Lafayette County
| Decision Date | 07 December 1896 |
| Citation | 77 F. 665 |
| Parties | WONDERLY v. LAFAYETTE COUNTY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Frederick A. Wind, for plaintiff.
Elijah Robinson, for defendant.
The plaintiff demurs to certain paragraphs of the answer of the defendant to the petition, which is a proceeding of scire facias to revive a judgment heretofore rendered in this court in favor of Francis D. Owings against the defendant county. The plaintiff, Wonderly, claims as assignee under said judgment.
The first paragraph of the answer puts in issue the jurisdiction of this court over the parties, for the reason that both are residents and citizens of the state of Missouri. As the proceeding to revive the judgment by scire facias must be instituted and conducted in the court rendering the judgment it is an ancillary proceeding, and for that reason the plea is not well taken, and the demurrer thereto is sustained.
The second paragraph of the answer pleads that this court had neither jurisdiction over the subject-matter nor of the person of the defendant when it rendered said judgment. The demurrer to this paragraph is sustained for the reason that the question of jurisdiction was adjudicated in the rendition of said judgment, and no fact is stated or shown by the answer authorizing this court, in this proceeding, to readjudicate that question.
The fourth paragraph of the answer alleges, as the reason why the judgment should not be revived, that the said judgment constitutes no lien upon any of the property of the defendant, and is not entitled to, nor indeed can have, any such lien. This question was fully considered by the court in the opinion filed herein heretofore, on the demurrer of the defendant to the scire facias. For the reasons therein assigned, the demurrer to this paragraph of the answer is sustained.
The fifth paragraph of the answer pleads the pendency of another suit between these parties respecting said judgment in the circuit court of Lafayette county, Mo. It appears from the answer that the suit pending in said Lafayette county is an action founded on the judgment brought within 10 years after its rendition, and its purpose is to obtain a new judgment upon the judgment rendered in this court. While the ultimate effect of the two proceedings may be the same to the plaintiff, yet they are not of the same character, and there is no reason in law why the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universal Transp. Co., Inc. v. National Surety Co.
... ... 661; ... Grantland v ... [252 F. 295] ... Memphis ... (C.C.) 12 F. 287; Wonderly v. Lafayette Co. (C.C.) ... 77 F. 665; King v. Davis (C.C.) 137 F. 198; ... Davis v. Davis, 174 ... followed in the federal court. In Collin County National ... Bank v. Hughes, 155 F. 389, 394, 83 C.C.A. 661, the ... Circuit Court of Appeals ... ...
-
Lafayette County v. Wonderly, 1,071.
...No. 1,071.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.February 20, 1899 The writ of error in this case challenges a judgment of revivor (77 F. 665) upon a writ of scire facias on a judgment the county of Lafayette, in the state of Missouri, rendered on October 31, 1885. The writ was issu......
-
Green v. Langnes, 7821.
...only in the court which rendered the judgment. Brown v. Wygant, 163 U.S. 618, 623, 16 S.Ct. 1159, 41 L.Ed. 284; Wonderly v. Lafayette County (C.C.W.D.Mo.) 77 F. 665, 666, affirmed in Lafayette County v. Wonderly, supra. Having obtained his judgment in a state court, appellant must look to t......
-
Wise v. Thread
...not from some other court. Conner v. Neff, 27 N.E. 645; Masterson v. Cundiff, 58 Tex. 472; Schmidtke v. Miller, 71 Tex. 103; Wonderly v. Lafayette Co., 77 F. 665; 18 Am. & Ency. Pl. & Pr., p 1064, note 1, citing Funderbunk v. Smith, 74 Ga. 515; Barron v. Pagles, 6 Ala. 422; Knapp v. Knapp, ......