McDermott v. Doyle
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. This was a suit against the security in a detinue bond-. The declaration stated the following cause of action : In 1844, the plaintiff, McDermott, filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court a declaration in detinue against Samuel A. Childs, for the recovery of a slave, upon which a writ of capias in detinue issued, according to the provisions of the act of 1835, concerning de-tinue.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. This was a suit against the security in a detinue bond-. The declaration stated the following cause of action : In 1844, the plaintiff, McDermott, filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court a declaration in detinue against Samuel A. Childs, for the recovery of a slave, upon which a writ of capias in detinue issued, according to the provisions of the act of 1835, concerning de-tinue. Childs gave bond with the present defendant as security, conditioned according to the requirements of the act. After-wards, and after plea filed by tbe defendant Cbilds, he died, and,…
1Opinion of the CourtRvlasd, Judge
The main question in this case involves the right of the plaintiff in the original suit to prosecute the same, after the death of the original defendant, against his administrator.
It will be seen, that the action was detinue, brought by Mc-Dermott against Samuel A. Childs, for the recovery of a negro *365man, named Bob. Daring the pendency of this suit, Childs departed this life, and John E. Darby, public administrator of St. Louis county, took charge of his estate as administrator, and the action was revived in his name, and carried on against him as administrator of Childs. Does the action of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cutcliff v. McAnallySupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Kingsbury's Executors v. Lane'sSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855