Wood v. Williams
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Lawrence County Circuit Court. I. The second bond not Laving been given in pursuance of the statute law, (§§ 36, 37, Art. I, Administration) did not supersede the first, but was merely cumulative. (Haskell vs. Farrar 56, Mo., 497; State to use, etc. vs. Fields, 53 Mo., 474; State to use, etc. vs. Drury, 35 Mo., 281.) II.
Read the full summary
Error to Lawrence County Circuit Court. I. The second bond not Laving been given in pursuance of the statute law, (§§ 36, 37, Art. I, Administration) did not supersede the first, but was merely cumulative. (Haskell vs. Farrar 56, Mo., 497; State to use, etc. vs. Fields, 53 Mo., 474; State to use, etc. vs. Drury, 35 Mo., 281.) II. The estate of Moore should not be deprived of the indemnity given it by the mortgage, because Hale’s administrator chose to sue upon the second bond instead of the first. The recovery from Moore’s estate was precisely the same in either case, and for the very same…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
It appears from an agreed statement of-facts filed in this cánse that on the 15th day of February, 1859, Michael S. Williams, surviving partner of the firm of Hale & Williams, having been appointed by the County Court of Lawrence County, administrator of the partnership estate of said firm, gave bond as such administrator, with Alexander A. Moore and James H. Jones as his sureties.
On the 11th day of March, 1859, Williams and wife executed and delivered to said Moore and Jones a mortgage of certain lands therein described, to secure them from loss or damage as such sureties, which was…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Bellinger v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- State ex rel. McKown v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State ex rel. Frost v. CreusbauerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. FlemingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Stevens v. TuckerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.