Moore v. Stanley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appealfrom Polk Circuit Court. The order of publication made, and notice of suit published, do not state the property of defendant, has been or is about to be attached. The publication is within the spirit and intent of the statute of 1855, and literally embraces the law in the statute ot 1865, which only requires an order “notifying them of the commencement of the suit and stating briefly the object and general nature of his petition.”
Read the full summary
Appealfrom Polk Circuit Court. The order of publication made, and notice of suit published, do not state the property of defendant, has been or is about to be attached. The publication is within the spirit and intent of the statute of 1855, and literally embraces the law in the statute ot 1865, which only requires an order “notifying them of the commencement of the suit and stating briefly the object and general nature of his petition.” (W. S., 1008, § 13.) The statute does not make it essential that the clerk making the order, should insert the words, “That his property has been attached.” —…
1Opinion of the Court
Sherwood, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.. This is an action of ejectment, brought in the Polk Circuit Court. Joseph M. Griffith is claimed as the common source of title. Defendant admitted he was in possession of the lands sued for, and was in possession thereof at the commencement of this suit. The plaintiff read in evidence, a deed from *318Joseph M. Griffith, dated February 10, 1868, for the land in question. The defendant read in evidence, a deed from the sheriff of Polk county to him for said lands, reciting the attachment of said lands October 17, 1865; judgment rendered March…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. GrodnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tufts v. VolkeningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Chapman v. St. Louis Belt & Terminal Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Tufts v. VolkeningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892