Dodson v. Scroggs
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Third District Court. The Cedar Circuit Court clearly had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit,, and the parties voluntarily submitted themselves to that jurisdiction, and can not be heard to question it after trial and judgment.
Read the full summary
Error to Third District Court. The Cedar Circuit Court clearly had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit,, and the parties voluntarily submitted themselves to that jurisdiction, and can not be heard to question it after trial and judgment. (Brady v. Bichardson, 18 Ind. 1; Ludwick v. Beckamire, 15 Ind. 198; Paulding v. Hudson, 2 E. D. Smith, 38 ; Buckley v. Hielbrumer, 7 Ind. 488 ; Cooper v. Beeves, 13 Ind. 53 ; Hills v. Miles, 13 Wis. 625 ; Walker et al. v. Parker, 22 Barb. 323 ; Brown v. Webber, 6 Cush. 560; Simmons v. Parker, 1 Mete. 508 ; Cleveland v. Welsh, 4 Mass. 592 ; Belknap…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
Defendant’s intestates were sureties upon the administration bond of one E. T. Berry, original administrator of the estate of said Wilson Gray; and said administrator having defaulted, he was removed, and this suit was brought upon his official bond. It was instituted in the Circuit Court of Dade county, but, on motion of defendants, was removed to the Circuit Court of Cedar county, where the plaintiff recovered judgment. Defendants now object *287to the judgment from the fact that by a local act (Sess. Acts 1845, p. 70) applicable to the county of Dade, “exclusive, original jurisdiction” is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. MatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Duncan's Adm'r v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by22 opinions
- Fields v. MaloneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Brown v. WoodySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Scott v. RoystonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Fitzgerald v. BarkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Hammons v. RenfrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.