Legal Opinion

National Bank of the Metropolis v. Williams

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1870PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. • I. The four days required by the statute mean four judicial days. (Wash v. Randolph, 9 Mo. 142.) Sunday is not a judicial day. (Hale v. Owen, 2 Salk. 625; Rex v. Elkins, 4 Burr. 2130.) • The common law on the subject is not changed by the statute (Wagn. Stat. 887-8, § 6). II.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. • I. The four days required by the statute mean four judicial days. (Wash v. Randolph, 9 Mo. 142.) Sunday is not a judicial day. (Hale v. Owen, 2 Salk. 625; Rex v. Elkins, 4 Burr. 2130.) • The common law on the subject is not changed by the statute (Wagn. Stat. 887-8, § 6). II. The declarations of Hutchinson, by which the defendant sought to connect the draft sued on with the cotton speculations of Hutchinson and Williams, are mere hearsay, and incompetent evidence against the bank: first, because the cotton speculation was not within the scope of his…

1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant on Saturday. The plaintiff presented his motion for a new trial and in arrest on the next Thursday, five days from the rendition of the judgment, instead of four, as seems to be required by the following provision of the statute: “All motions for new trials and in arrest of judgment shall be made within four days after the trial if the term shall so long continue; and if not, then before the end of the term.” (Wagn. Stat. 1059, § 6.) If the four days are intended to mean four judicial days, then the motions -were made in season, because in that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Womack v. McahrenIndiana Supreme Court · 1857

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Ewart v. PenistonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  2. Porter v. R. J. Boyd Paving & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  3. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  4. State v. MaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  5. Cattell v. Dispatch Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API