Phegley v. Steamboat David Tatum
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. It is not contended that the records of the justice’s court were “ records or judicial proceedings,” under the act of Congress of 26th May, 1790, though some courts have held this doctrine, (3 Mon. Ky. 62; 5 Day, 363,) but that they were competent evidence in connection with the testimony of the witness Saxton as sworn office copies.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. It is not contended that the records of the justice’s court were “ records or judicial proceedings,” under the act of Congress of 26th May, 1790, though some courts have held this doctrine, (3 Mon. Ky. 62; 5 Day, 363,) but that they were competent evidence in connection with the testimony of the witness Saxton as sworn office copies. All the- authorities agree that no informalities, mistakes or errors can render void the judgment of a court having jurisdiction, where that judgment is collaterally put in…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
These cases were argued and submitted to the court together. They were suits to enforce liens under the act concerning boats and vessels. The only questions for consideration arise upon the defence made, which was similar in each case.
Roger O. McAllister, the owner of the boat, set up as a defence that he had bought the boat at a time which was after the liens in these cases had accrued, and before the boat was seized in these cases; that his purchase was made at a constable’s sale, in the State of Illinois, authorized by by a proceeding against the boat under the boat law of that State, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Finney, Lee & Co. v. Steamboat FayetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847