Bear v. Youngman

19 Mo. App. 41, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 172
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 26, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 Mo. App. 41 (Bear v. Youngman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bear v. Youngman, 19 Mo. App. 41, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 172 (Mo. Ct. App. 1885).

Opinion

Hall, J.

This was a suit by injunction for the purpose of enjoining the defendant, who was the constable of Morgan township, Mercer county, Missouri, from selling plaintiff’s goods under an execution issued by Jesse Trapp, a justice of the peace of said township, upon a judgment rendered by said justice in favor of C. L. Hart and William Hart, for $46.65 and costs.

The judgment was rendered on the 30th day of November, 1882, the same being Thanksgiving day, under the proclamation of the president of the United States’ and also under proclamation of the governor of the State of Missouri.

Summons was properly served and the only objection to the authority of the defendant, as constable, to seize and sell the goods under the execution, is, that the judgment was rendered on Thanksgiving day. The defendant demurred to the petition for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court. And on motion of the defendant the injunction was dissolved. The plaintiff has appealed to this court.

I.

Section 2848 of the Revised Statutes provides that “every justice of the peace may hold court for the trial of causes of which he has jurisdiction, as often as may be necessary for the purposes of justice, and may hold such court on any day except Sunday, * *

. The judgment rendered by the justice was, therefore, not void. Section 551 and 4039 of the Revised Statutes cited by appellant are not in point.

II.

But even if such judgment had been void, that fact [44]*44alone did not entitle plaintiff; to the relief prayed for Stockton, Exec'r, v. Ranson, Adm’r, 60 Mo. 539, and cases cited.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

State v. Gould
170 S.W. 868 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Diesing v. Reilly
77 Mo. App. 450 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lowder
39 S.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lowder
59 Mo. App. 3 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Stewart v. Brown
20 S.W. 451 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Taylor v. Todd
48 Mo. App. 550 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Mo. App. 41, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bear-v-youngman-moctapp-1885.