Lesem v. Neal
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. I. Plaintiffs’ right of action, if any they had, was barred by the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. I. Plaintiffs’ right of action, if any they had, was barred by the statute of limitations. (W. S., 918, § 11; Mitchell vs. Palbright, 32 Mo., 551.) I. The statute did not begin to run until the appellant made return on the writ of attachment, showing what he did with the attached goods, which was not until the 10th day of December, 1870. Simply depositing' the writ in the clerk’s office, without showing what had been done with it, was no return at all. (Kirk vs. Sportsman, 48 Mo., 383; State vs. Minor, 44 Mo., 373; State vs. Gutzweiler, 49 Mo., 17; Nelson vs.…
1Opinion of the CourtVories, Judge
The petition of plaintiffs in this cause alleges, that on the 4th day of August, 1866, S. H. Herryford and Bond E. Lowry were indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $335.25 ; that on said day plaintiffs commenced suit, by way of attachment, against said Herryford and Lowry, in the Linn Circuit Court; that an attachment was duly issued in said cause against the property of the said Herryford and Lowry, which said writ of attachment was on said day delivered to the defendant Neal, who was at the time the sheriff of said county, to be by him executed according to law; that the defendant as. such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Judge v. GatzweilerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- State ex rel. Winburn v. MinorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
3Cited by11 opinions
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- State ex rel. Chatham National Bank v. FinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- State ex rel. Fehrenbach v. LoganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Morrissey v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- State ex rel. Matney v. SpencerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.