Case Name: The State ex rel. Snyder, Collector, v. Davidson, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1885-10
Citations: 87 Mo. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Snyder, Collector, v. Davidson, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: Ml concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Snyder, Collector, v. Davidson, Plaintiff in Error.
1. Judgment: when in excess of sum claimed. A judgment fot taxes based on a constructive service and in excess of the sum asked for in the petition, is erroneous on the face of the record.
3. -: -. A motion made by defendant, at the term at which the sale was had, to set aside such judgment should have been sustained.
Error to Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge.
Reversed,
F. M. Harrington for plaintiff in error.
The court had no jurisdiction by the order'of publication made in this case to authorize the judgment. When the plaintiff took judgment for the sum of $6.18 there were no facts in the petition to support it. A judg ment in excess of the relief asked renders the judgment void. The plaintiff cannot have other or different relief than that prayed for in the petition. Moore v. Dixon, 50 Mo. 424; Maupin v. Triplett, 5 Mo. 422; Gar v. Edwards, 1 Mo. 137; Janney v. Spedden, 38 Mo. 395; Pitkin v. Yaw, 13 111. 252.
A. D. Res don for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Buaok, J.
Special judgment was rendered against the defendant enforcing the lien for taxes on one hundred and twenty acres of land for the year 1877, the subsequent taxes having been paid. The land was sold on execution for three dollars, it being of the value of from two to three dollars per. acre. The judgment was for $6.18, when according to the prayer of the petition and the order of publication, it could not have exceeded $5.74. Because of this excess'of forty-four cents, the defendant learning of the sale, appeared by his agent at the same term at which the sale was made, and moved to set it aside, which motion was overruled. As the judgment was based upon constructive service, and was in excess of the relief asked, it was, to say the least, erroneous on the face of the record, and 'the defendant having made a timely motion, it should have been sustained.
The judgment overruling the motion is reversed and the cause remanded
Ml concur.