State ex rel. Cassidy v. Slavens

75 Mo. 508
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 Mo. 508 (State ex rel. Cassidy v. Slavens) 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
State ex rel. Cassidy v. Slavens, 75 Mo. 508 (Mo. 1882).

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

l. mandamus: cities: specialtax: execution.

Section 77, 1 "Wagner’s Statutes,. 617, controls this case. That section provides that whenever an execution issued out of any court of p . . , ° record m this State against any incorporated town or city shall be returned unsatisfied, etc., such court may by writ of mandamus compel the proper officers to-levy a special tax to pay such execution and all costs. In our opinion when the remedy provided for by this section is invoked, no formal petition or application for the issuance of an alternative writ is necessary. It would seem to be sufficient to show the execution and the return thereon, and then call for the alternative writ of mandamus. The-statute evidently contemplates a summary proceeding in aid of the unsatisfied execution. And there is some significance in the fact that section 77, supra, is found under the title of “ Execution ” as if to. show that the mandatory process is more in the nature of an ordinary execution than the usual process designated by the name of mandamus. If no formal pleading were necessary in instances like the present as preliminary to the issuance of the alternative writ,, then certainly no demand was necessary to the maintenance and proper prosecution of the present pro[510]*510ceedings. It is not necessary to rely upon common law authorities' in reference to this matter of demand, because the statute is sufficient in and of itself and does not require any adventitious aids.

2 ____. cj!ailge ox venue: costs. And we do not regard this as a fit occasion for an application for a change of venue, no more than we would were an application made in term time for igguance 0f an execution. All matters in controversy between the parties hereto had been settled by the judgment recovered. And the motion for costs made by the clerk was properly denied. Section 1, page 687, General Statutes 1865, does not apply to a case of this kind. Here the action of the relator had ceased and had become merged in the j'udgment recovered for her use. The time for such motions had consequently gone by. Eor these reasons we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Sharp v. Knight
26 S.W.2d 1011 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1930)
Heather v. City of Palmyra
276 S.W. 872 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Hubbel v. City of Maryville
85 Mo. App. 165 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
State ex rel. Boulton v. Norvell
80 Mo. App. 180 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
Lafayette County v. Wonderly
92 F. 313 (Eighth Circuit, 1899)
State ex rel. Gourley v. Mayor of Kansas City
58 Mo. App. 124 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Hambleton v. Town of Dexter
89 Mo. 188 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Cloud v. Inhabitants of the Town of Pierce City
86 Mo. 357 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Mo. 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cassidy-v-slavens-mo-1882.