State ex rel. Goldsall v. Watson

30 Mo. 122
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided March 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Napton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not consider it material whether the claim to property levied on under execution is made in conformity to the third section of the act of March 3,1855, or not, if the officer chooses to treat it as a valid claim under the act, and demands and takes of the plaintiff in the execution a sufficient indemnification bond. The fifth section provides that where the officer takes such bond, with good and sufficient security, he shall not be liable to such claimant for any damage or injury sustained by such claimant in consequence of such levy or sale. Although the instruction, upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited, was erroneous, yet, as the same result would have followed from the fact that an indemnification bond was given, wo shall affirm the judgment of the

circuit court.

The other judges concur.

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

State ex rel. Goldsall v. Watson, 30 Mo. 122 (Mo. 1860).

30 Mo. 122 (State ex rel. Goldsall v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldsmith v. Taussig
60 Mo. App. 460 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Smith ex rel. Cabiness v. White
48 Mo. App. 404 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
State ex rel. Grabinsky v. Smit
20 Mo. App. 50 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
State ex rel. Little v. Donnelly
9 Mo. App. 519 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Dodd v. Thomas
69 Mo. 364 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)
Eichelmann v. Weiss
7 Mo. App. 87 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1879)
State ex rel. Gannett v. Johnson
1 Mo. App. 219 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1876)
State ex rel. McMurray v. Doan
39 Mo. 44 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1866)
Hambleton v. Lynch
32 Mo. 259 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1862)