Miller v. Wall
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. Justices of the peace have no jurisdiction of actions on penal bonds. They have jurisdiction only in the cases specified in the statute. No remedy is provided for the defendant in an execution. This case is outside of the classes of cases referred to in the twenty-third and twenty-eighth sections. The snit, if maintainable at all, should have been brought in the name of the state. There is a misjoinder of defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. Justices of the peace have no jurisdiction of actions on penal bonds. They have jurisdiction only in the cases specified in the statute. No remedy is provided for the defendant in an execution. This case is outside of the classes of cases referred to in the twenty-third and twenty-eighth sections. The snit, if maintainable at all, should have been brought in the name of the state. There is a misjoinder of defendants. I. The case is clearly within the twenty-third and twenty-eighth sections of the eighth article of the act concerning justices’…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The plaintiff brought a suit in his own name against the defendant Wall and his sureties on his official bond, before a justice of the peace. The ground of action is that Wall, as constable, with an execution in his hands against the plaintiff, levied on property which by law was exempt from execution.
As a general rule, suits on official bonds must be brought in the name of the state to the use of the party injured; (Sickles v. McManus, 26 Mo. 28;) but there are exceptions to this rule as to all the cases provided for in the twenty-third and twenty-eighth sections of the eighth article…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sickles v. McManusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. WadeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887