Cohen v. Camp
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from SI. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court had no power to set aside or annul its proceedings and record made at a prior term. The judgment was by the order “forever discharged and released.” The court, at a subsequent term, had no power to re-examine the cause, or the sufficiency or the insufficiency of the reason of the court’s action at a former term. (1 Wagn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from SI. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court had no power to set aside or annul its proceedings and record made at a prior term. The judgment was by the order “forever discharged and released.” The court, at a subsequent term, had no power to re-examine the cause, or the sufficiency or the insufficiency of the reason of the court’s action at a former term. (1 Wagn. Stat. 792, § 28 ; Ashby v. Glasgow, 7 Mo. 321; Harrison v. State, 10 Mo. 687 ; Hill v. St. Louis, 20 Mo. 584; Brewer v. Dinwidie, 25 Mo. 351; Harbor v. Pacific R.R., 32 Mo. 423 ; Smith v. Best, 42 Mo. 185.) H. A judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtWas-NER, Judge
The respondent recovered judgment against the appellant in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county, at the September term thereof, 1854. Suit was brought on the judgment at the *180April term, 1867, in the Circuit Court of said county. The petition averred that the judgment was still due to the plaintiff, and that it remained unpaid and unsatisfied. These allegations were denied in the answer. It appears that satisfaction had been entered of record. Whilst the suit was still pending and undecided, the respondent caused a notice to be served on the appellant that he should move at a certain…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Household Finance Corporation v. AveryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
- United States v. BrooksMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001
- Boynton v. BoyntonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Commonwealth for Use Benefit of Bates v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933