Legal Opinion

Henschall v. Schmidtz

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 15, 1872PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. I. The statute of 1855 must govern in this case, because under that statute the- appellants had acquired vested rights. (See R. C. 1855, p. 904, §§ 13,14. It is incompetent for the Legislature to divest these rights, or destroy them, by subsequent legislation retrospective in its operation. (Const, of Mo., art. i, § 28 ; Fisher v. Cockerill, 5 Mour., Ky., 129 ; Atkinson v. Dunlap, 50 Me. Ill; Streubel v. Milwaukee & Mississippi R.R.

Read the full summary

Error to Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. I. The statute of 1855 must govern in this case, because under that statute the- appellants had acquired vested rights. (See R. C. 1855, p. 904, §§ 13,14. It is incompetent for the Legislature to divest these rights, or destroy them, by subsequent legislation retrospective in its operation. (Const, of Mo., art. i, § 28 ; Fisher v. Cockerill, 5 Mour., Ky., 129 ; Atkinson v. Dunlap, 50 Me. Ill; Streubel v. Milwaukee & Mississippi R.R. Co., 12 Wis 67; State ex rel. Register of Public Lands v. Auditor of Public Accounts, 33 Mo. 287; Routsong et al. v.…

1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge

The appeal in this case was taken from a judgment rendered by the court overruling a motion to quash an execution. The original judgment of the court was rendered in 1860, and no execution was issued thereon until 1870, nearly ten years having elapsed. No notice was given to the adverse party, or leave obtained from the court where the execution was sued out. The law of 1855 provided that after the lapse of five years, and within ten years from the entry of a judgment, where there was no lien in existence, an execution should be issued only by leave of the court, on motion with notice to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bolton v. LansdownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Templeton v. Linn CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Larkin v. SaffaransDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1883
  3. Daniels v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Abbott v. Marion Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
  5. Peters v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API