State ex rel. Schreiber v. Dickman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) If the defendant Dickman, as sheriff, levied upon and sold relator’s property without apprising him of his exemption rights, he could have had the levy and sale set aside by timely application to the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) If the defendant Dickman, as sheriff, levied upon and sold relator’s property without apprising him of his exemption rights, he could have had the levy and sale set aside by timely application to the court. Stinson v. Call, 163 Mo. 323. (2) As to the levy upon and sale of that part of relator’s property which was his homestead, no action for damages will lie against the sheriff and his sureties, because the purchaser of such homestead acquired no title and the relator therefore suffered no injury. Kendall v. Clark,…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts.) — 1. Defendants offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. The refusal to grant this instruction is assigned as error. It is the duty of the sheriff to notify the execution debtor of his statutory exemption rights before he mates a levy to satisfy the execution (R. S. 1899, sec. 3163; Linck v. Troll, 84 Mo. App. 19; Stinson v. Call, 163 Mo. 323, 63 S. W. 729), and if he fails to give the notice and the debtor is damaged thereby, the sheriff is liable on his bond. [The State to use v. Carroll, 9 Mo. App. 275; State ex rel. v. O’Neill, 78 Mo.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Aull v. St. Louis Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Curtis v. WardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
- Harrington v. UtterbackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Isaacs v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- State ex rel. Conklin v. BaradaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Woodrome v. FreemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913