State ex rel. Sublette v. Melton
Supreme Court of Missouri
The plaintiff insists, that, to make a good return, the officer must certify how he executed the writ, and must make actual return of the same. — Mo. Dig., 1835, p. 254, sec. 5, 6; Ibid., p. 260, sec. 52, 53. I.The demurrer to the second assignment of breaches was properly sustained; because — 1. The assignment sets forth two sufficient causes of action in respect of the same demand, and is, therefore, bad for duplicity.— 1 Chitty’s Plead., 259; Com.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff insists, that, to make a good return, the officer must certify how he executed the writ, and must make actual return of the same. — Mo. Dig., 1835, p. 254, sec. 5, 6; Ibid., p. 260, sec. 52, 53. I.The demurrer to the second assignment of breaches was properly sustained; because — 1. The assignment sets forth two sufficient causes of action in respect of the same demand, and is, therefore, bad for duplicity.— 1 Chitty’s Plead., 259; Com. Dig., title, “ Pleader,” e. 64. 2. The plaintiffs profess, in the commencement, to assign “ a further breach,” and then set forth, in the same…
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, J.
The State of Missouri, for the use of William Sublette and Robert Campbell, sued William N. Melton, Louis Bolton, William N. Campbell, John W. Wells, and others, securities of said Melton in his official bond, given as sheriff of Cole county on his said bond. The plaintiff assigned, as a breach of the condition of said bond, that, on the 22d day of January, 1840, he delivered to the said Melton, sheriff, as aforesaid, a writ of execution, issued by the Circuit Court'of Cole county, to be executed and returned according to law; and that said Melton did not make return of said execution,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Richardson v. GilbertSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Stephens v. Fire Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- State v. ScharSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Jones v. GoodbarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Irvin v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886