Brown v. Langlois

70 Mo. 226
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 70 Mo. 226 (Brown v. Langlois) 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
Brown v. Langlois, 70 Mo. 226 (Mo. 1879).

Opinion

Napton, J. —

This suit was brought in the Cape Girardeau common pleas court, and the service of the writ of summons is in these words: “Executed the within summons in the county of Gape Girardeau, and State of Missouri, by leaving a true copy of the within writ, petition and account, at the usual place of abode, when in the city of Cape Girardeau, of the within named John W. Langlois, with a person of the family over the age of fifteen years, this 3rd day of January, A. D. 1876.” At the return term default was taken. “Now comes the plaintiff, and defendant although duly summoned, being called,' comes not, but makes default.” At the subsequent term final judgment was rendered, execution issued, and under this writ of execution real estate was levied on and sold, and on the return day of the execution the defendant moved to quash the execution, because the judgment was void for want of service of the writ of summons. This motion was sustained, and from this an appeal is taken. No think the judgment of the court of common pleas was right. The return does not conform no the law, and the judgment by default is a nullity. It is no attempt to contradict a record collaterally or by parol, for the return upon the writ is a part of the same record, which recites that the defendant was duly summoned. Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

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

Related

Drinkard v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
290 S.W.2d 175 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)
Kelso v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.
85 S.W.2d 527 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Harbert v. Durden
92 S.W. 746 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Feurt v. Caster
73 S.W. 576 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Rosenberger v. Gibson
65 S.W. 237 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
City of St. Louis v. Flynn
31 S.W. 17 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Sullivan v. Williams
21 S.E. 642 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1895)
Gamasche ex rel. Estes v. Smythe
60 Mo. App. 161 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Williams v. Monroe
28 S.W. 853 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Russell v. Grant
26 S.W. 958 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Laney v. Garbee
105 Mo. 355 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Swift v. Meyers
37 F. 37 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1888)
Healey v. Butler
27 N.W. 822 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1886)
Madison County Bank v. Suman's Administrator
79 Mo. 527 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Mo. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-langlois-mo-1879.