Case Name: STEAMBOAT FALCON vs. PATRICK DONOHOE
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1850-03
Citations: 13 Mo. 231
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEAMBOAT FALCON vs. PATRICK DONOHOE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
STEAMBOAT FALCON vs. PATRICK DONOHOE.
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
B. A. Hill, for defendant.
The judgment before the justice was entirely annulled by the appeal, and the Boat released from. the lien thereby. Turner vs. Northcut and McCarty, 9 Mo. 251,255,6 in point.
The appeal from the justice was not an appeal of the Boat, hut the appeal of W. H. Parkinson, captain, who became the appellant. The Boat could not appeal, 329, page 186, Rev. Code, 1845.
The proceedings against the Boat were in rem, the appeal introduces the appellant and security into the case as appellant and security; the judgment of affirmance is upon the failure of the appellant to pay the jury fee. Parkinson is the appellant, and he is the party in default and a judgment is entered against him in personam; and the same judgment is entered against the Boat, to wit: a judgment in personam, or a proceeding in rem. This is manifest error.
But if it is held, notwithstanding, that a judgment might be entered against the Boat, an appeal then by §9 and §20, page 185 R. C., “the judgment should specify to what class of liens the demand belonged,” This is not done, but a general judgment is rendered against the Boat, and the appellant and the security commingling proceedings in rem and in personam together, and taking a judgment against the Boat “not authorized by law.”
The spirit of the act concerning Boats and Vessels, is manifestly, to release the lien on the 'vessel when she is bonded, or when an appeal is taken from a justice. See §21, page, 185, R. C. An appeal releases the Boat upon the bond of the appellant and his security, and the act concerning appeals, only permits judgment against the appellant and his security, in per-sonam.
If all other things, however, were regular, the fieri facias, in this case, is wholly irregular.
The Rev. Code § 20 p. 185, provides that “a special writof fieri facias shall be issued thereon, specifying the class of liens to -which the demand belongs, “commanding the sheriff to se l the Boat to satisfy the judgment, &c.” The jfi.fa. issued in this case, is a general one upon a general judgment.
Gardner for appellee.
The judgment in this case is substantially correct, it being an affirmance of the judgment 0f the justice, and the only judgment that couldbe rendered by the court, and is a judgment against the Boat, the appellant and the securities in the recognizance as they appear in the recognizance. Revised Statutes Mo. justices courts, act — art. 8, section 4 as to form of recognizance. Sec. 23d. of same act, and the case Hardison vs. Steamboat Cumberland Valley, decided atthis term ol the court.
It is contended by the appellant in this case that by giving a recognizance for an appeal the Boat was discharged from the lien of the plaintiff’s demand. This is manifestly incorrect, as in all suits before justices of the peace under the “act concerning Boats and Vessels,” the proceedings must conform to the law, governing other cases injustices courts. See section 24 of the “act concerning Boats and Vessels.”
The only way by which a boat can be discharged from the lien of the plaintiff’s demand is by giving a bond before final judgment, as required by sec. 9, of the act before referred to.
The execution issued in this case, was authority for the sheriff to seize the Boat, and then upon a proper statement of the facts to make an application to the court for an order of sale, as provided for, by section 11, of the act before referred to.
The execution if informal or incorrect couldbe recalled by the court, and amended — no informality in the execution would be caused for the court to set aside the judgment — it could neither render it void or even voidable.

Opinion:
Ryland, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes within the principles of the decision made at this term by the court, in the case of Hardison vs Steamboat Cumberland Valley; reference is therefore made to that decision as the one that will govern this.