Friar v. Ray
Supreme Court of Missouri
The question is, whether Friar was not, as having the prior lien, entitled to the whole proceeds of the sale; and did not the circuit court err in ordering a pro rata payment thereof? — 2 Tidd’s Prac. 849; 1 Will. Rep. 39; 3 Salk. Rep. 212; 1 Will. Rep. 37, 39; 7 Term Rep. 20, 24; do. do. 20, 24; 4 East’s Rep. 534; 7 Term Rep. 20, 24; 1 Black.
Read the full summary
The question is, whether Friar was not, as having the prior lien, entitled to the whole proceeds of the sale; and did not the circuit court err in ordering a pro rata payment thereof? — 2 Tidd’s Prac. 849; 1 Will. Rep. 39; 3 Salk. Rep. 212; 1 Will. Rep. 37, 39; 7 Term Rep. 20, 24; do. do. 20, 24; 4 East’s Rep. 534; 7 Term Rep. 20, 24; 1 Black. Com. 59, 60; 1 do. do. 89; 2 do. do. 141; Co. Lit. 135; Stat. 339, sec. 1, 2; do. 339, sec. 3; do. 341, sec. 28, 29, 30;.do. 259, sec. 45; do. 253, sec. 5; do. 259, sec. 45; do. 41, sec. ‘28, 29, 30; 8 John. Rep. 347 — 8; 11 do. do. 228. The only…
1Opinion of the CourtMcGirk, Judge
In July, 1837, in the circuit court of St. Francois county, J. F. Hickox confessed a judgment in favor of Friar for nine hundred and fifty dollars debt, and forty dollars and seventy-five cents damages. This was done on the 18th of July; on the next day, Hickox confessed a judgment in the same court to J. S. Ray, for three hundred and fifty dollars and sixty-five cents. On the 31st July execution issued on both judgments; and on the 17th of August, both executions were put into the hands of the sheriff. The sheriff advertised the debtor’s land for sale to satisfy both executions, and the land…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Shore v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840