Matlack v. Lare

32 Mo. 262
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided March 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Bay, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Hempler v. Schneider, 17 Mo. 258, and Denny v. Eckelkamp, 30 Mo. 140, this court held that a party might give jurisdiction to an inferior court by a voluntary renunciation of a part of his demand. This cause, however, must be remanded, for the reason that there was no lien to enforce. To entitle the plaintiffs to a lien it was necessary for them to file with the clerk of the St. Louis Land Court a just and true account of their demand, which they seek to make a lien upon the buildings and a true description of the property, or so near as to identify the same, upon which the lien is intended to apply. In this case the account filed contains no such description of the property as would enable any person to identify it. It describes it as two three-story brick houses on the east side of Fifth street, between Franklin avenue and Morgan street. No boundary is given, nor is the number of the lot designated, nor does it even state that the property is in the city of St. Louis. To enforce a judgment upon a mechanic’s lien, the law requires that the execution shall be a special fieri facias — such an execution issued upon this judgment would fail to disclose to the officer the property to be sold. He certainly could not identify the property by the description in the fieri facias. The defect is fatal as to any lien; but according to the decision in Patrick v. Abeles, 27 Mo. 184, the plaintiff may take a general [265] judgment, and to enable them to do so we shall remand the cause.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded,

the other judges concurring.

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

Matlack v. Lare, 32 Mo. 262 (Mo. 1862).

32 Mo. 262 (Matlack v. Lare) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kinnear Manufacturing Company v. Myers
452 S.W.2d 599 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1970)
Hertel Electric Company v. Gabriel
292 S.W.2d 95 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)
Jones Lumber Co. v. Snyder
300 S.W. 850 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1927)
Clark Williams Realty Co. v. Briggs
148 S.W. 147 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Hammond v. Darlington
84 S.W. 446 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Drexel v. Richards
67 N.W. 742 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Anderson v. Bingham, Teague & Co.
1 Colo. App. 222 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1891)
Rall Bros. v. McCrary
45 Mo. App. 365 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Stewart v. Thompson & Co.
11 S.E. 1030 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)
Holland v. McCarty
24 Mo. App. 82 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Wright v. Beardsley
69 Mo. 548 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)
De Witt v. Smith
63 Mo. 263 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)
Fitzpatrick v. Thomas
61 Mo. 512 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)
Williams v. Porter
51 Mo. 441 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)