State ex rel. Stewart v. Matlock
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. Gr. H. Burck-HARTT, Judge. The court should not have permitted the defendants to file their answer nine days after the case was set for trial. Squires v. Bird, 23 Mo. 472. The court also committed error in refusing to allow the- change of venue. Corpenny v. Sedalia, 57 Mo. 91. The merits on the facts were with the plaintiff. The judgment was not against the evidence, but in accordance with it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. Gr. H. Burck-HARTT, Judge. The court should not have permitted the defendants to file their answer nine days after the case was set for trial. Squires v. Bird, 23 Mo. 472. The court also committed error in refusing to allow the- change of venue. Corpenny v. Sedalia, 57 Mo. 91. The merits on the facts were with the plaintiff. The judgment was not against the evidence, but in accordance with it. The application for the change of venue was properly overruled, as it was made out of time. R. S., § 3731.
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, C.
This is an action on the bond of a sheriff, which assigns for breach thereof his refusal to offset an execution and fee bill in favor of a defendant against whom he held an execution. It seems that John H. Stewart, for whose use this action is prosecuted, recovered a judgment ■against one Burton, and that Burton recovered a judgment against said Stewart. It is alleged in the petition that executions were issued upon these opposing judgments, and were placed in the hands of defendant, N. G-. Matlock, as sheriff; that instead of offsetting the two demands, he collected the execution…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wolff v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Cannon v. NiklesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1941
- State ex rel. Ward v. LubkeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Austin v. BoydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887