Hallowell v. Page
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action against D. D. Page, H. D. Racon, T. Brown, and E. Wyman, as drawers of a bill of exchange. The bill was drawn by Page & Bacon, of St. Louis, which firm was composed of defendants, upon the Bank of America, New York, in favor of Morris L. Hallowell & Co. Process was duly served upon Bacon, Brown and Wyman.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action against D. D. Page, H. D. Racon, T. Brown, and E. Wyman, as drawers of a bill of exchange. The bill was drawn by Page & Bacon, of St. Louis, which firm was composed of defendants, upon the Bank of America, New York, in favor of Morris L. Hallowell & Co. Process was duly served upon Bacon, Brown and Wyman. The sheriff made the following return : “I further executed this writ on the 15th day of September, 1855, by leaving a copy of the writ and petition, as furnished by the clerk, at Daniel D. Page’s usual place of abode, with a…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
The defendant has no right to controvert the truth of the sheriff’s return. That return was regular on its face, and its truth could only be impeached in a collateral action against the officer for its falsity. To permit the parties to an action to controvert the truth of the return of the officer deputed by law to serve the process would produce great delay and embarrassment in the administration of justice. Hence it is the general rule that, as between the parties to the process or their privies, the return is usually conclusive, and is not liable to collateral impeachment. This rule, it is…
2Cited by35 opinions
- McClanahan v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Mastin v. GraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Smoot v. JuddSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Madison County Bank v. Suman's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Jeffries v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.