Lackey v. Lubke
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error io Crawford Circuit Court. I. The continuance should have been granted. The application and affidavit in support of it shows reasonable diligence, especially when the condition of the country is considered. II. The depositions of Klunk and Hunt were improperly excluded. III. The sheriff’s deed was improperly excluded.
Read the full summary
Error io Crawford Circuit Court. I. The continuance should have been granted. The application and affidavit in support of it shows reasonable diligence, especially when the condition of the country is considered. II. The depositions of Klunk and Hunt were improperly excluded. III. The sheriff’s deed was improperly excluded. (Act on Execut. §§ 49-54, R. C. 1845, pp. 484-5; Hardy v. Heard et ah, 15 Ark. 185-7 ; Rev. Stat. Ark., p. 382, § 54.) It contained all the recitals required by law. In Tanner v. Stine (18 Mo. 580), cited by defendant’s counsel, the deed omitted a recital of the court, the…
1Opinion of the CourtLovelace, Judge
When this case was called for trial, the plaintiff filed an affidavit asking for a continuance on the ground of the absence of material witnesses and on account of the absence of counsel; he gives the names of the witnesses and their place of residence, showing that they reside over forty miles from the place of trial, and sets out what he expects to prove by the witnesses, and that he has made some exertion to get their depositions; that he had given notice to take their depositions on the 17th day of April, (the trial came on the 24th,) and that he had notified the witnesses to appear at…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tanner v. StineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Stevens v. ChouteauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- Butler v. ImhoffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ronan v. DewesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885