TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fortune v. City of St. Louis

Fortune v. City of St. Louis, Garnishee of Dillon

Fortune v. City of St. Louis, 23 Mo. 239 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1856
Judges
Eyeand
Citations
23 Mo. 239
Cited by 10
Headnotes
1. The city of St. Louis is not subject to the process of garnishment.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. cited Hawthorn v. City of St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59; 6 Vermont, 121; 12 Conn. 404; 11 Conn. 124 ; 2 Mass. 37; 16 id. 275; 7 Monr. 439.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Eyeand

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Eyeand, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

James Fortune caused an execution to be issued on a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for St. Louis county, against John Dillon, and had the city of St. Louis summoned as garnishee. At the September term of said court in 1854, said Fortune caused a statement of the grounds on which he had ordered the city to be summoned as garnishee to be filed, and filed also interrogatories for the city to answer. The city demurred to the allegation and interrogatories ; the court sustained the demurrer, and Fortune brings the case here by appeal. The question in this case falls within the principles of the decision heretofore made by this court in the case of Hawthorn v. City of St. Louis. ( 11 Mo. 60 .) The counsel for the appellant attacks that decision, and urges this court to overrule it. He fails however to bring to the support of his argument any authority. We adhere to the principles laid down in that decision; and as this case is embraced by it, we will affirm the judgment. ( 2 Mass. 37 ; 12 Conn. 404 ; 6 Verm. 121 ; 7 Monroe, 439; 11 Conn. 124 .) The other judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1872–1873: 11874–1875: 11876–1877: 21878–1879: 11900–1901: 21914–1915: 11928–1929: 11932–1933: 118722026peak 1876 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Gates15 W. Va. 131 (1879)
  2. Geist v. City of St. Louis57 S.W. 766 (Mo. 1900)
  3. Wallace v. Lawyer54 Ind. 501 (1876)
  4. Boone County v. Keck31 Ark. 387 (1876)
  5. Dickinson v. Johnson61 S.W. 267 (Ky. Ct. App. 1901)
  6. State ex rel. English v. Trimble9 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Mayne v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.64 F.2d 843 (8th Cir. 1933)
  2. State ex rel. English v. Trimble9 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1928)
  3. John Rohan & Son Boiler Works Co. v. Young176 S.W. 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)
  4. Dickinson v. Johnson61 S.W. 267 (Ky. Ct. App. 1901)
  5. Geist v. City of St. Louis57 S.W. 766 (Mo. 1900)
  6. Brown v. Gates15 W. Va. 131 (1879)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Ward v. Cnty. of Hartford, 12 Conn. 404 (1838) 20
Stillman v. Isham, 11 Conn. 124 (1835) 14
Bradley v. Town of Richmond, 6 Vt. 121 (1834) 8
President of the Union Tpk. Rd. v. Jenkins, 2 Mass. 37 (1806) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list