J. Abeles & Co. v. N. Friedberg & Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cole Circuit Court.—Eon. D. ■ W. Shacldeford, Judge. (1) The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash summons. The law does not require a summons to be issued. R. S. 1889, sec. 6310. (2) This is not a judicial writ, and hence is not required to be signed by any officer. Grocer Co. v. Carlson, 67 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cole Circuit Court.—Eon. D. ■ W. Shacldeford, Judge. (1) The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash summons. The law does not require a summons to be issued. R. S. 1889, sec. 6310. (2) This is not a judicial writ, and hence is not required to be signed by any officer. Grocer Co. v. Carlson, 67 Mo. App. 179; Daugherty v. Brown, 91 Mo. 26. (3) If summons is required, the summons in this case was sufficient, and appellant should have been allowed to amend tlie same. (4) The motion to quash was aimed at the summons and not the return of the constable, and hence was aimed at…
1Opinion of the CourtElltson, J.
The plaintiffs obtained judgment against defendants before a justice of the peace in Cole county and had a regular execution issued thereon. On this execution the constable garnished the respondent garnishee to appear before the justice and answer interroga*669tories. The summons of the garnishee was dated and served December 2, 1896, and commanded the garnishee to appear before the justice December 5, to answer interrogatories. The garnishee appeared for the purpose only of a motion to quash the garnishee summons and the justice sustained the motion. On appeal to the circuit court on a new…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Young v. DowneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Sanders v. RainsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Gregor Grocer Co. v. CarlsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Swallow v. DuncanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Williams v. BowerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.