Johnson v. Mason
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lubke, J. The money deposted with the sheriff, not having been placed there virtute officii, was not in custodia legis, but was subject to garnishment.— Lightner v. Steinagel, 33111.510-517; Pierce v. Carleton, 12 111. 358; Wheeler v. Smith, 11 Barb. 348; King v. Moore, 6 Ala. 160.
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
On January 30, 1882, Anak A. Rowland sued William J. Berkley in replevin for the recovery of certain personal property of the alleged value of $800. There was an order of delivery, to which the sheriff, the present defendant, made return that the defendant in replevin had deposited with him the sum of $400 to indemnify the plaintiff, and was therefore allowed to retain the property — the said sum of $400 to be held “ subject to the order of court.” The defendant also gave a forthcoming bond to the sheriff in the penal sum of $750, with Bowman and Robertson as his sure*272ties. Rowland afterwards…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. FuchsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885