Legal Opinion

State v. Abel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 27, 1902PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) TMs proceeding by scire facias is intended and purports to be one to enforce a recognizance entered into in open court, “as appears by tbe record.” Section 4143, Revised Statutes 1899, provides “that the same shall be proceeded upon to final judgment.” This is the prescribed rule.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) TMs proceeding by scire facias is intended and purports to be one to enforce a recognizance entered into in open court, “as appears by tbe record.” Section 4143, Revised Statutes 1899, provides “that the same shall be proceeded upon to final judgment.” This is the prescribed rule. Any want of adherence to a prescribed rule in rendition of a judgment, is irregular, and same can be set aside within three years by motion. Sec. 795, R. S. 1899; Downing v. Still, 43 Mo. 309; Branstetter v. Rives, 34 Mo. 321. In the case at bar…

1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.

This is a proceeding by scire facias to enforce a recognizance entered into on January 8, 1900, by Charles Abel as principal, and James H. Cronin and David Mnrphy as sureties, in the penal sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, upon condition that if said Charles Abel should personally appear before the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, division No. 8, from day to day during the then pending term of said court and on the first day of any future term thereof to which said cause might be continued, then and there to answer to a motion for a new trial and motion in arrest of judgment,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. HoeffnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  2. Martin v. Ohio River R'dWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. State v. PottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
  4. State v. HeedSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  5. Hardin v. McCanseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. EyermannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
  2. City of St. Louis v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  3. State v. StevensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. State v. LackerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API