87 Mo. 670 | Mo. | 1885
It is conceded by counsel that the only question which the record in this case presents for ^determination is : Does an appeal taken from the judgment of the circuit court, where an appeal bond is given which operates as a supersedeas, have the effect of extending the lien of such judgment beyond the time prescribed by statute Í It is also conceded that if this
It is true as contended that it is not shown by the report of the case whether any bond or order operating as a supersedeas had been given or made, or anything to show that the plaintiff in the judgment could not have enforced his judgment by execution during the pendency of the writ; but this can make no difference inasmuch as the decision of the court was distinctly put upon the words of the statute. A judgment lien, is of statutory origin, the lifetime of which is fixed by statute, which we are not at liberty either to diminish or extend, by construing into the statute an exception which it is alone the province of the legislature to insert. It is argued that inasmuch as an appeal where a bond is given operates as a supersedeas, and denies to the judgment creditor an execution to enfoi'ce the lien of his judgment, it would be a hardship on him to rule that the appeal, if not determined within the .period fixed by law for the continuance of the judgment lien, did not operate to continue his lien. This argument would be more properly addressed to the law-making power than to us. Besides, the hardship complained of is not so manifest when the fact is considered, that before an appeal can have the effect of denying to the judgment creditor an execution, the party appealing must give a
The point presented in this case was neither raised nor considered in the cases of Bank v. Wells, 12 Mo. 361, and Meyers v. Campbell, 12 Mo. 603. Judgment affirmed.
