Quinnett v. Washington
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. That by the common law the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover single damages, because the payment was made upon process provided by law.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. That by the common law the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover single damages, because the payment was made upon process provided by law. I Leigh’s Nisi Prius cases, 64, and cases cited. 2. That by the statute the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover, under the evidence given in the case:— 1st. Because the section which gives the penalty, does not extend to the case of proceedings by warrant like the present, but in its terms applies only to a claim on execution. See Statutes of 1842-3, p. 247. §7, giving penalty only in case of…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was a proceeding under the act of Assembly entitled, “An Act concerning landlords and tenants in St. Louis county,55 approved Feb5y 25th, 1843. Session Acts 247. Under the 9th section of this act a distress warrant was sued out by Quinette against Rensler Ainsworth and Jediah Allen, to recover the sum of $563 due for rent. The officer was directed by Quinnett out of the goods of Washington, who was alleged to be a sub-tenant of Ainsworth & Allen, to make the sum of $32 90, which was said to be the-amount due by Washington as-sub-tenant. His goods were accordingly distrained, and he paid…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. Sherwood Distilling Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
- Maguire v. State Savings Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Jones v. FordCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
- Illinois Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Chicago Telephone Co.Illinois Circuit Court · 1902