Bradley v. Holloway
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s ' Court. I. The act of March 3,1855, is merely cumulative in its provisions and not obligatory. Parties claiming personal property seized under execution or attachment are not obliged to enforce their claims under it. I. Bradley omitted to set forth his claim in writing as required by the third section of the act of March 3,1855.
1Opinion of the CourtRichaRDSON, Judge
The plaintiff brought an action of replevin against the defendant for a wagon and yoke of oxen. The cause was tried without a jury; and it appears, from the facts found by the court, that the defendant, as constable of Merrimac township, levied on the property in dispute whilst in the plaintiff’s possession, by virtue of an execution issued by a justice of the peace of that township agninst Benjamin Haley. The court further found that the property did not at any time belong to Haley, but that it belonged to the plaintiff, which he demanded of the defendant before the commencement of the suit,…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Foule v. MannSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Dodd v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Eichelmann v. WeissMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Palmer v. ShenkelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- State ex rel. Little v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.