Legal Opinion

Gordon v. McCurdy

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1858PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Plalte Circuit Court. This was an action against Elijah Cady on a promissory note for $492.60. On the 17th day of January, 1856, an attachment was issued in aid of said suit, and on the 19th day of the said month it was levied on certain real estate in Weston as the property of Cady.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Plalte Circuit Court. This was an action against Elijah Cady on a promissory note for $492.60. On the 17th day of January, 1856, an attachment was issued in aid of said suit, and on the 19th day of the said month it was levied on certain real estate in Weston as the property of Cady. In the progress of the cause Solomon P. McCurdy filed an interplea claiming the property attached by virtue of a deed of trust bearing date January 17,1856, executed by said Cady to said McCurdy and one Hulse to secure the creditors of the said Cady. The deed was executed in St. Louis and was filed…

1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge

An interplea in an attachment suit is a remedy conferred by the statute. Its use therefore must be limited to the cases in which it is authorized by law.

There is nothing in the statute which intimates that an interplea can be made for real estate. So far from it, its language seems to confine the remedy to cases in which personal property is attached. There is not the same motive for allowing it in the one case as in the other. Land is fixed and permament, and if one has a right to it, that right can not be affected except he has notice and is brought in as a party. Others may litigate about…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Conklin v. BaradaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API