Schawacker v. Luddington
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from tbe St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachrilz, Judge. But if such judgment had been pleaded, the court was entirely without jurisdiction in the case.. And therefore the motion made and filed by interpleader on April 26, 1899, to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachrilz, Judge. But if such judgment had been pleaded, the court was entirely without jurisdiction in the case.. And therefore the motion made and filed by interpleader on April 26, 1899, to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, should have been sustained. This was a garnishment on execution, and it is the settled law of this state that an interplea will not lie to reach funds in the hands-of a garnishee on execution. 16 Mo. 252; Wolf v. Yette, 17 Mo. App. 36. And the same doctrine is reaffirmed in Brown…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
On June 1, 1896, D. J. Dempsey entered into a contract with Francis H. Luddington to do all the work and furnish all the materials in the reconstruction of building No. 20 North Main street, for $850.
And on June 15, 1896, said D. J. Dempsey entered into another contract to do all the work and furnish all the materials required, in the reconstruction of building known as No. 6 North Commercial street for $2,500.
On the first day of July, 1896, when the said work was incomplete and the most of the work thereof remained yet to be done, D. J. Dempsey, in consideration of John Dempsey assuming the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Capital Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Hord v. HarlanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Wimer v. PritcharttSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- Potter v. WhittenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Taylor v. DollinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Stonebraker v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905