Bauer v. Bauer

40 Mo. 61
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 40 Mo. 61 (Bauer v. Bauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bauer v. Bauer, 40 Mo. 61 (Mo. 1867).

Opinion

Holmes, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears that an execution had been issued from the clerk’s office of the St. Louis Land Court upon a transcript of a judgment before a justice of the peace, filed therein, and that upon motion the Land Court recalled the execution and set aside the judgment of the justice. It further appears by he bill of exceptions that this judgment was rendered against Catherine Bauer, in a suit by Ignatz Bauer against Jacob [63]*63Bauer and Catherine his wife, upon a note executed by her while a married woman, and that she was “possessed in her own right in fee” of certain land described. It seems to have been supposed that this gave her a separate estate in respect of this property, and that her note was valid as made in respect of her separate estate. This was altogether a mistake ; no separate estate was thereby created. Her note was void for want of capacity to make it. The judgment was irregular, if not absolutely void.

The statute provides that such judgments, from the time of filing the transcript, “ shall be under the control of the court where the transcript is filed ; may be revived and carried into effect in the same manner, and with like effect, as judgments of Circuit Courts”—R. C. 1855, p. 961, § 19. We think the Land Court had jurisdiction not only to recall the execution, but to set aside the judgment, and that the action of the court upon the motion was entirely correct and proper.

Judgment affirmed;

the other judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rousey v. Stilwagon
74 S.E. 732 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1912)
Carter v. Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co.
102 S.W. 6 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Smoot v. Judd
83 S.W. 481 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Bragg v. Israel
86 Mo. App. 338 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Babb v. Bruere
23 Mo. App. 604 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Kimball v. Silvers
22 Mo. App. 520 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Bauer v. Miller
16 Mo. App. 252 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Carey & Co. v. Burruss & Pitzer
20 W. Va. 571 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1882)
Musick v. Dodson
76 Mo. 624 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)
Long v. Cockrell
55 Mo. 93 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Higgins v. Peltzer
49 Mo. 152 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1871)
Bruner v. Wheaton
46 Mo. 363 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1870)
Schafroth v. Ambs
46 Mo. 114 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Mo. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauer-v-bauer-mo-1867.