Henry v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. I. The interest of A. M. Mitchell in the lots in controversy was liable to be seized on the attachment. (B. C. 244, § 19 ; Lisa v. Lindell, 21 Mo. 127; Lacky v. Seibert, 23 Mo. 93.) In this State, the interest of a tenant in common, in any given part of the common property, is liable to be seized and sold on execution.
Read the full summary
Error to Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. I. The interest of A. M. Mitchell in the lots in controversy was liable to be seized on the attachment. (B. C. 244, § 19 ; Lisa v. Lindell, 21 Mo. 127; Lacky v. Seibert, 23 Mo. 93.) In this State, the interest of a tenant in common, in any given part of the common property, is liable to be seized and sold on execution. This is an authority derived from our statute, and which is variant from the rule of the common law. If the defendant has any interest in the real estate seized on execution, however slight, it…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
On the 15th of May, 1855, Alexander M. Mitchell, I). D. Mitchell, and Robert M. Renick, were the owners of a quarter section of land adjoining the city of St. Joseph, in Buchanan county, and laid out the same into blocks and lots, with streets and alleys intersecting and separating the same, as an addition to the city of St. Joseph, called South St. Joseph, and on that day filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Buchanan county a plat of the same, and thus dedicated to public use the streets, alleys, and public grounds marked thereon.
On the 29th April, 1857, Jaccard & Co.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Joplin Consolidated Mining Co. v. City of JoplinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Hall v. StevensonOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- First Nat. Bank of Hailey v. SonnelitnerIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Barber Asphalt Paying Co. v. KieneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Stewart v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892