United States v. Gamble & Bates
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. That the judgment on which the suit against Holliday was brought, merged the offence for which he was originally indicted, and debt lies on the judgment against Holliday, ex contractu.— United States vs. Dodge, 14 Johnson, 95; Act of Congress 24th September, 1789, ch. 20, § 11; Addison’s Reports, IT.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. That the judgment on which the suit against Holliday was brought, merged the offence for which he was originally indicted, and debt lies on the judgment against Holliday, ex contractu.— United States vs. Dodge, 14 Johnson, 95; Act of Congress 24th September, 1789, ch. 20, § 11; Addison’s Reports, IT. S. vs. Wolf, 312; Houston vs. Moore, 5 Wheat.; 1st Chitty’s Pleadings, 126,127, 403, 404. And that the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States, in civil actions, in which the United States are plaintiffs, is, in cases not excepted by the letter or…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
Marshall Holliday was convicted of a crime against the United States and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay a fine. His trial and conviction took place in the Courts of the United States in Louisiana. Gamble & Bates, residing in this State, had in their hands moneys belonging to Holliday. A suit, by attachment, was commenced by the U. States against Holliday in the St. Louis Circuit Court, for the purpose of recovering the fine imposed by the court in Louisiana. Gamble & Bates being summoned as garnishees, on their motion,the suit was dismissed, and the United States brings the cause to…
2Cited by14 opinions
- McKinney v. NorthcuttMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- State v. BrennanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Miller v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Blount v. ZinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Swaggard v. HancockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.