Blandon v. Martin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blandon v. Martin

50 Mo. App. 114, 1892 Mo. App. LEXIS 292

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 Mo. App. 114 (Blandon v. Martin) 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

Blandon v. Martin, 50 Mo. App. 114, 1892 Mo. App. LEXIS 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, P. J.

— The defendant Martin filed a motion in the court below to quash the levy of an execution on his alleged homestead, which was overruled, and from the judgment overruling the same the defendant has appealed.

The judgment must be affirmed for the reason that it does not appear from the record that either the execution or the levy thereon indorsed was introduced in evidence. The levy is not before us. It was the foundation of the defendant’s case. If it had no existence, there was nothing of which the defendant could complain. In absence of an admission by the other parties it was necessary for the defendant to prove the averment of such levy. No such proof was made. No court would be authorized to quash the levy of an execution, when, as in this case, the existence of such levy is not in some way shown. This is essential, and without it the defendant’s case is incomplete. He was, for that reason if for no other, not entitled to the relief demanded,

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Smith, P. J.

— The defendant Martin filed a motion in the court below to quash the levy of an execution on his alleged homestead, which was overruled, and from the judgment overruling the same the defendant has appealed.

The judgment must be affirmed for the reason that it does not appear from the record that either the execution or the levy thereon indorsed was introduced in evidence. The levy is not before us. It was the foundation of the defendant’s case. If it had no existence, there was nothing of which the defendant could complain. In absence of an admission by the other parties it was necessary for the defendant to prove the averment of such levy. No such proof was made. No court would be authorized to quash the levy of an execution, when, as in this case, the existence of such levy is not in some way shown. This is essential, and without it the defendant’s case is incomplete. He was, for that reason if for no other, not entitled to the relief demanded,

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Mo. App. 114, 1892 Mo. App. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blandon-v-martin-moctapp-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack