Lenox v. Clarke
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The officer only read the writ to H. Lenox, and yet the defendant was entitled to a copy of the petition and of the writ. This service was defective. (Hickman vs. Barnes, 1 Mo., 156; Spencer vs. Medder, 5 Mo., 461; Stewart vs. Stringer, 41 Mo., 400; Blanton vs. Jamison, 8 Mo., 52; Smith’s ad-m’r vs. Rollins, 25 Mo., 410.) Strict compliance with the law is required.
Read the full summary
•Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The officer only read the writ to H. Lenox, and yet the defendant was entitled to a copy of the petition and of the writ. This service was defective. (Hickman vs. Barnes, 1 Mo., 156; Spencer vs. Medder, 5 Mo., 461; Stewart vs. Stringer, 41 Mo., 400; Blanton vs. Jamison, 8 Mo., 52; Smith’s ad-m’r vs. Rollins, 25 Mo., 410.) Strict compliance with the law is required. (Matthews vs. Blossom, 15 Maine, 401; Sheldon vs. Comstock, 3 R. I., 84; Dobbins vs. Thompson, 4 Mo., 118 ; Waddingham vs. City of St. Louis, 14 Mo., 190; Cabeen vs. Douglas, 1 Mo., 336;…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was ejectment for a lot of land in the City of St. Louis.
Both parties claim through Hamilton Lenox, deceased, the plaintiffs as his heirs at law, and tlie defendant under a sheriffs deed. The only point raised here, is upon the validity of the sheriff’s deed. It was made in- virtue of two executions, one of which was issued in an attachment case in which this land was not attached, and there was no personal judgment, the other was on an execution issued on a judgment rendered in the Phelps County Circuit Court in favor of Elisha Q. Harding against Hamilton Lenox and F. M. Lenox.
The…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Hagerman v. SuttonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State ex rel. Ozark County v. TateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Williams v. HudsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Burnett v. McClueySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Boyd v. EllisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.