Brotherton v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. L We are not too late for this application, (2 voh Mo. TL. 329.) Nor is the plaintiff estopped from denying the legality of the proceedings before the justice, by having j aid the amount of judgment. 6 Cowen 300. 10 Wendell 351. 2. The proceedings before the justice were whi lly irregular, null and void. R. C. 84, sec. 3. R. 0. 86, sec. 17. 1 Pet.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. L We are not too late for this application, (2 voh Mo. TL. 329.) Nor is the plaintiff estopped from denying the legality of the proceedings before the justice, by having j aid the amount of judgment. 6 Cowen 300. 10 Wendell 351. 2. The proceedings before the justice were whi lly irregular, null and void. R. C. 84, sec. 3. R. 0. 86, sec. 17. 1 Pet. U. S'. C. C. Reports 30, 36 10 Wheat. 192. 2 Crunch 445. 2 Mass. 213. 5 Han. and Johns. 130. The defendant, in error relies upon the statute regulating appeals from justices courts. The 2nd section of the 8th…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court Delivered by.
Tompkins Judge.
On the fifth day of August, in the year 1887, the said John J. Anderson commenced an action before Joseph Walsh, a justice of the peace of St. Louis county, against J. Snow-den Hopkitu', by attachment, and James Brotherton, in his life time, was summoned a; garnishee.
The suit was founled on a note for $143.55. • On the day of trial, Brotherton not appearing, tile juitice entered up judgment against him for the amount of the note. Execution was issued against Brotherton, and on the 27th day of September 1837, the execution was returned…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Chenoweth v. La MasterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
- Roach v. Montserratt Coal Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Mesker v. CornwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909