State ex rel. Russell v. Hendricks
This text of 88 Mo. App. 560 (State ex rel. Russell v. Hendricks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The executions were not directed to Hendricks, but to Wintz. Hendricks was not the deputy of Wintz in making the sale. The executions furnished him no more authority to make the sale than would have a blank piece of paper. He was but a trespasser acting without the semblance of authority and the pretended sale made by him in the absence of Wintz was absolutely null and void and appellant’s rights in and to the property was not in the least affected by the pretended sale. Appellant’s right of action, if any he has, is for the wrongful taking and conversion of his property. Hendricks was not acting in the discharge of any official duty, nor under any process directed to him on which he could in whole or part execute as constable, hence, this action can not be maintained on his official bond.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
88 Mo. App. 560, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-russell-v-hendricks-moctapp-1901.