Hundley v. Filbert

73 Mo. 34
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 73 Mo. 34 (Hundley v. Filbert) 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
Hundley v. Filbert, 73 Mo. 34 (Mo. 1880).

Opinion

Henry, J.

Hundley, Judd & Smith, had an execution issued on a judgment in their favor against Charles and George Filbert, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Gentry county, and on the 22nd day of March, 1877, the defendants in this proceeding executed and delivered to said Hundley, Judd & Smith a delivery bond, reciting a levy of said execution on goods, wares, etc., of the value of $1,200, the property of said Filberts, and obligating themselves that said Filberts should deliver all of said property to the sheriff’, at Albany, in the county of Gentry, on the 10th day of August, 1877. On the 29th day of October, 1877, the return day of said execution, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the circuit court of said county for judgment against the defendants on said bond, the goods therein mentioned not having been delivered in compliance with the condition of the bond, and the'execution having been returned unsatisfied. There was judgment for defendants on the motion, from which plaintiffs have appealed.

The defense relied upon by the sureties in the bond was, that the sheriff had not made a levy on the goods by an actual seizure. It is not necessary to determine whether, on the facts, there was, or was not, such a levy as is contemplated by the statute, since defendants are estopped [35]*35from denying that there was such a levy. Jewett v. Torrey, 11 Mass. 219; Lyman v. Lyman, 11 Mass. 317; Price v. Kennedy, 16 La. Ann. 78; Inman v. Strattan, 4 Bush 447; McMillan v. Dana, 18 Cal. 347; Roebuck v. Thornton, 19 Ga. 151; Mead v. Figh, 4 Ala. 279; Drake on Attachment, § 339. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Related

Heidegger v. Roll
145 S.W. 836 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Smith ex rel. McElhany v. Rogers
90 S.W. 1150 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Smith ex rel. McElhaney v. Rogers
73 S.W. 243 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Pearre Bros. v. Folb
31 S.E. 475 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Dunterman v. Storey
58 N.W. 949 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Martin v. . Gilbert
119 N.Y. 298 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Joseph Schnaider Brewing Co. v. Niederweiser
28 Mo. App. 233 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Mo. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hundley-v-filbert-mo-1880.