Hastings v. Hennessey
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Pembrook R. Elitcraft, Judge. The court erred in refusing to declare that the attempted appeal of Hennessey from the judgment of the justice in unlawful detainer did not operate as a supersedeas. Bather v. Gabanne, 105 Mo. 110. The judgment in this cause impairs defendants’ contract and adds to its burdens.
Read the full summary
Error to the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Pembrook R. Elitcraft, Judge. The court erred in refusing to declare that the attempted appeal of Hennessey from the judgment of the justice in unlawful detainer did not operate as a supersedeas. Bather v. Gabanne, 105 Mo. 110. The judgment in this cause impairs defendants’ contract and adds to its burdens. Const, of U. S., art. 1, sec. 10; Const, of Mo., art. 2, sec. 15. The obligation of sureties can not be extended beyond the letter of their undertaking. Bauer v. Cabanne, supra; City v. Porter, 76 Mo. 358; Cochrane v. Stewart, 63 Id. 424;…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff instituted an action of unlawful detainer against the defendant Hennessey. There was a judgment in his favor before the justice, and Hennessey appealed. • The circuit court dismissed the appeal and Hennessey appealed to this court. On the last appeal he gave the bond here in suit. The bond is conditioned that Hennessey will not commit or suffer any waste or damage on the premises sued for, and that he will pay “all damages, rents, and profits *356and costs, which were adjudged against him in said cause by the justice of the peace, and which are adjudged against him and which may be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Metropolitan Bank v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Hastings v. HennesseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Bevis v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Hastings v. HennesseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894