Neenan v. City of St. Joseph
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. H. M. Ramey, Judge. (1) The fact that James Neenan was a minor and no guardian acl litem was appointed, was not sufficient cause for setting aside the judgment. The rule that a-judgment against several defendants for a sum of money is an entirety, and, if erroneous as to one, is so as to all, has no applicability to cases where the judgment or decree relates to land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. H. M. Ramey, Judge. (1) The fact that James Neenan was a minor and no guardian acl litem was appointed, was not sufficient cause for setting aside the judgment. The rule that a-judgment against several defendants for a sum of money is an entirety, and, if erroneous as to one, is so as to all, has no applicability to cases where the judgment or decree relates to land. City of St. Louis v. Lanigan, 97 Mo. 175. (2) No personal judgment can or will be rendered in a tax suit, even where there is personal service. It is a judgment in rem, or against the…
1Opinion of the CourtMacuaplane, J.
— This is a proceeding in the nature of a bill of review or error coram nobis, to vacate a judgment for the sale of plaintiff ts land for delinquent taxes.
The suit for taxes was prosecuted against John Neenan, John J. Neenan, Mary Neenan, and plaintiff James Neenan, for the taxes due the city of St. Joseph for a number of years, and charged against the land. All the parties to the suit, except the plaintiff, were personally served with process, but none of them answered. The court found that “defendants were duly served by personal service” and rendered judgment charging their land, of which…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bensieck v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- State ex rel. Ozark County v. TateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- In re ToneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
- Williams v. HudsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Tucker v. St. Louis Life Ins.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Stotler ex rel. Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Cross v. GouldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Wallis, Landes & Co. v. StuartTexas Supreme Court · 1899
- State Ex Rel. Chastain v. City of Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- Morey Engineering & Construction Co. v. St. Louis Artificial Ice Rink Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.