Seaman v. Paddock
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Buclicman Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry M. Eamey, Judge. All the questions raised on the record in this case are answered in favor of appellant, by the opinion in Rail Bros. v. McCrary, 45 Mo. App. 365, decided by this court, May 11, 1891, but not reported till after the decision of this case at the circuit. That case cannot be distinguished from this.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Buclicman Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry M. Eamey, Judge. All the questions raised on the record in this case are answered in favor of appellant, by the opinion in Rail Bros. v. McCrary, 45 Mo. App. 365, decided by this court, May 11, 1891, but not reported till after the decision of this case at the circuit. That case cannot be distinguished from this. There plaintiffs showed by their lien paper that they were entitled to a lien upon the building, and not entitled to one upon the land. Here plaintiff showed he was entitled to a lien upon the building and claimed none upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Plaintiff Seaman recovered a judgment before a justice of the.peace for the enforcement-of a mechanics’ lien against a certain frame building known as (‘Kensington Rink,” located on certain described real estate in St. Joseph. A transcript of the judgment was filed in the Buchanan circuit court, •and an execution was there issued. Thereupon defendant Paddock filed a motion to quash the execution, ■which was heard and sustained, and plaintiff appealed.
I. As we view this controversy, the question is, ■did the justice who tried the case acquire jurisdiction ■of the parties and subject-matter? If…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boyd v. EllisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Ewing v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Ely v. OwnbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mitchell Planing Mill Co. v. AllisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Seaman v. PaddockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893