Laughlin v. Fairbanks
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Miller Circuit Court. The plaintiffs in error insist— 1. That they cannot he brought into court by motion (without notice) and her made to answer in damages to any one who may claim to be the assignee of their judgment creditor; the office of a motion being merely to obtain a rule or order in the progress of a cause. — 3 Bl.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Miller Circuit Court. The plaintiffs in error insist— 1. That they cannot he brought into court by motion (without notice) and her made to answer in damages to any one who may claim to be the assignee of their judgment creditor; the office of a motion being merely to obtain a rule or order in the progress of a cause. — 3 Bl. Com., side-page, 304; 1 Call, 476; 4 H. & M., 276. 2. The plaintiffs insist that there was error in vacating and setting aside the order endorsed on said execution: and that the judgment against only two of the plaintiffs in, error, for costs, omitting to notice…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
At the December term, 1842, of the Miller Circuit Court, W. S. Fairbanks obtained a judgment against John M. Laughlin, Michael Wilson and Others, for thirteen hundred and seventy-five dollars. At the July term succeeding, Lisle & Edwards, assignees of two-thirds of the judgment in the above cause, filed a motion to set aside and vacate an order or receipt entered on the execution issued on each judgment, to the sheriff of Johnson county, directing said sheriff to return the execution satisfied; and demanding an alias execution for their portion of the judgment. They assigned as reasons for…
2Cited by25 opinions
- State ex rel. Reid v. WalbridgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State ex rel. Lemon v. Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Russell v. GrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1922
- Ridgway v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.