Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Mo. 382

Stevens v. Chouteau

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1848

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1848-03-15

ERROR from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Statement of the Case. This is an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, brought in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, for the value of a horse. The plaintiff obtained judgment in the court below, and the defendant has brought the case by writ of error to this Court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1848-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1922

5 state decisions

20184818501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Napton, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2The only question in this case is, whether an execution issued by a justice of the' peace, returnable in sixty days, instead of ninety days, will justify the officer who levies it. Is the execution merely erroneous or absolutely void on its face?

¶3There can be no doubt that a writ issuing from the Circuit Court, returnable out of term, is only erroneous, and not void. State, use of Ray, vs. Milburn, 11 Mo. R. A distinction has however been recognized by those eourts which have decided this principle, between executions issuing from courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction and those ema*385nating from courts of record of genmíáf jurisdiction. Upon reflection, we think there is sound policy in the distinction. A justice has no power over writs after they have issued; the power of amendment is not given by the statute, and from the statute alone he derives his authority. He has no common law or general jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Circuit Courts are invested with a full control over all process emanating by their direction or from the office of their clerks, and this power can always be exercised in time to prevent any irremediable injury arising from mistakes or abuse of its process by its officers. But the jurisdiction given by the statute to justices is not. only limited, but summary.— From the long intervals occurring between the sittings of the superior courts, it would be difficult, and, in some cases, impracticable, to correct by appeals, writs of prohibition and other modes prescribed by law, the mischiefs that would result from the execution of illegal process emanating from justices’ courts. . if the process be held merely erroneous, and not void, property may be sacrificed and the owner be without substantial redress. Hence, it is believed to be sound policy to adhere to the decisions of other States on this subject, and require the process which emanates from these inferior courts to conform substantially to the requisites of the statute. Toof vs. Bentley, 5 Wend., 276; 9 Wend., 388; 16 Verm. R., 393.

The other Judges concurring,

¶4the judgment is affirmed.

/11/mo/382 · .json · Public domain