State v. Pitts
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Bollinger Circuit Court. I. The statute of our State nowhere directs that in criminal proceedings of bail, no person shall be accepted as bail who is not possessed of property greater than the amount exempt by law from execution. (W. S. 1078, § 30.) II. The enforcement of the homestead law in cases like the one at bar, would interfere with and retard the administration of criminal justice.
Read the full summary
Error to Bollinger Circuit Court. I. The statute of our State nowhere directs that in criminal proceedings of bail, no person shall be accepted as bail who is not possessed of property greater than the amount exempt by law from execution. (W. S. 1078, § 30.) II. The enforcement of the homestead law in cases like the one at bar, would interfere with and retard the administration of criminal justice. Its enforcement in such cases is essential to the soverign capacity of the State, (Broom’s Legal Maxims, 5th Am. Ed., §72,) and a sound public policy requires that the State be held not subject to…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The facts in this case are agreed upon, and the only question is whether the owner of a homestead can claim exemption, ■ against an execution issued in favor of the State.
The defendant, Abernathy, was surety on a forfeited recognizance, on which the State obtained a final judgment and caused execution to be issued. He was the head of a fam*135ily, and owned one hundred and twenty acres of land on which he resided, valued at less than fifteen hundred dollars, which was acqirired previous to the time the obligation accrued. When the sheriff levied on the premises, he claimed that they were exempt…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Macke v. ByrdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. SeeboldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Maloney v. NewtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- State ex rel. Montgomery County v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- State v. KelseySupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.