Alexander v. Eberhardt
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court. I. Attention is called to the language of the special act, and to the well established rules of interpretation. This special law does not expressly prohibit the justice from delivering process to other constables of his township, and the general law says that he shall have the general authority to deliver generally to the constables of his township, unless expressly otherwise directed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court. I. Attention is called to the language of the special act, and to the well established rules of interpretation. This special law does not expressly prohibit the justice from delivering process to other constables of his township, and the general law says that he shall have the general authority to deliver generally to the constables of his township, unless expressly otherwise directed. (R. C. 1855, p. 963, § 3.) I say it is not specially otherwise directed, and that the act of March 4,1861, is affirmative only so far as the first clause is…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This was a proceeding commenced before a justice of the peace (under § 28, Art. YIIL, R. C. 1855, p. 968) against Eberhardt, and his securities, one of the constables of St. Louis township, in St. Louis county, for failing to make return of a fieri facias, on the return day thereof, placed in the hands of one his deputies to be executed in favor of Alexander against one Bates. The case comes here by appeal from the Law Commissioner’s Court, where there was a verdict and judgment for the defendants below.
Before proceeding to consider the question arising in this case, it is proper to premise…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Savacool v. BoughtonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Milburn v. GilmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bick v. WilkersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895