Richards v. Heger
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) The two returns of the constable to the two notices of change of venue, in stating that the defendant in that suit could not be found after true and diligent search, did not warrant service by publication under Revised Statutes 1899, section 3974, and the court failed to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Reinhart v. Varney, 72 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) The two returns of the constable to the two notices of change of venue, in stating that the defendant in that suit could not be found after true and diligent search, did not warrant service by publication under Revised Statutes 1899, section 3974, and the court failed to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Reinhart v. Varney, 72 Mo. App. 646; Fuerst v. Castor,' 174 Mo. 294; Rosenberger v. Gibson, 165 Mo. 16; Laney v. Garbee, 105 Mo. 355; Higgins v. Beckwith, 102 Mo. 462; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 103 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The action is to recover from Frederick Heger and Edward M. Seiferth, partners, George W. Stinebaker, constable, James C. Jones and William H. Ludwig, attorneys, four hundred and fifty dollars lawful money of the United States, alleged to have been unlawfully and forcibly taken from plaintiff’s possession by defendants. In the opinion of the -court, the evidence was insufficient to connect defendants, James and Ludwig with the transaction, and a verdict in their favor was directed. In respect to the other defendants, the facts-are, Heger and Seiferth brought suit against the plaintiff,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Green v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Livingston v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- State ex rel. Engle v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899