Bowles v. Lewis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jippeal from Sixth District Court. I. There is no dispute as to the fact that the officers who ordered the seizure and who made the sale of plaintiff’s property-had no higher authority than their own official position gave them. EL Neither the government nor its officers had authority to seize this property. It cannot acquire title to property except by law and under authority of law. (Ex parte Mulligan, 4 Wall. 1; Wilson v. Crockett, 43 Mo. 218.) III.
Read the full summary
Jippeal from Sixth District Court. I. There is no dispute as to the fact that the officers who ordered the seizure and who made the sale of plaintiff’s property-had no higher authority than their own official position gave them. EL Neither the government nor its officers had authority to seize this property. It cannot acquire title to property except by law and under authority of law. (Ex parte Mulligan, 4 Wall. 1; Wilson v. Crockett, 43 Mo. 218.) III. The action of the inferior court is tantamount to declaring that the agent of the government can divest title and give title to property when…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
In the fall of 1864 the provost marshal of the district embracing Montgomery county seized upon the personal property of the plaintiff, sold the same at public auction, and paid over the proceeds of the sale to the provost marshal general of the State, who approved his proceedings. Subsequently the plaintiff found a horse, part of the property so sold, in the hands of defendant, and brings this action for its recovery. The record simply shows the fact of seizure and sale, and gives no reason whatever for the proceeding. The case was submitted to the court, and the defendant claimed that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mitchell v. HarmonySupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Wilson v. CrocketSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Wellman v. WickermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869