State ex rel. Wheless v. Stinebaker
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. (1) That “the principal constable is liable for the acts of his deputy done under color of his authority,” is elementary. State ex rel. v. Claudius, 1 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. (1) That “the principal constable is liable for the acts of his deputy done under color of his authority,” is elementary. State ex rel. v. Claudius, 1 Mo. App. 551; State v. Vasel, 47 Mo. 416. (2) The act of the deputy constable in demanding and receiving three dollars watchman’s fee, at the time of the payment of the execution, was before the award of the same by the justice, and before the same was due, and is extortion and unlawful. Tbe statute (R. S. 1899) provides: “Section 3253. Fees of Constables. —…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This is an action against defendant and the sureties on his official bond, as constable to recover three dollars charged to have been extorted from relator, Joseph Wheless, as a watchman’s fee for looking after certain fumi*283ture which, respondent claims to have seized on execution against Wheless. Respondent’s deputy, Cyrus T. Rudge, went to appellant’s office in St. Louis with an execution, accompanied by Leslie Swofford. who was to act as watchman of any property that might be levied on. Wheless says no levy was made because he paid the execution as soon as it was presented. Rudge swears he…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. HockadaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- State v. BartlettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1860
- State v. VaselSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Polster v. MilesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Ruoff v. FitzgeraldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908