Cockrill v. Owen
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Platte Circuit Court. 1st That the recognizance for the appeal being a record — the plea of non est jactwn, was a nullity. 2nd. Its alteration by the Justice did not affect it. 3rd. The Justice had jurisdiction.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Platte Circuit Court. 1st That the recognizance for the appeal being a record — the plea of non est jactwn, was a nullity. 2nd. Its alteration by the Justice did not affect it. 3rd. The Justice had jurisdiction. The counsel for defendant in error will insist upon the following points, and rely for the»: support upon the following authorities:— 1st. That the Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction of this case, for two reasons: first, because the bond is a penal bond, and required breaches of the condition to be assigned 5 and because the said Owen was a party before the Circuit…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action commenced by Cockriil in a Justices5 Court against Owen, on a recognizance of appeal. The recognizance was for the sum of sixty dollars. The cause was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court, where on a trial de novo the plaintiff took a non suit.
The Justice who took the recognizance of appeal on which the suit was brought, testified that it was handed to him executed out of his office, and was payable to J. V. Cockrill, the plaintiff, in the suit in which it was taken. He took the recognizance to his office, and on looking at it, thought it ought to have been made payable to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gould v. WarnerNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Anthony v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1822
- Tate v. BarcroftSupreme Court of Missouri · 1822
3Cited by7 opinions
- Julian v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Polak v. MattsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Green v. SternbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Schutz v. SwigertArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Wilcox v. DanielsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.