Clark v. Holliday
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Callaway Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. From all that appears upon, the record, J. Barton Bates had no authority either to practice as an attorney at law, or to prosecute the said notice for said defendant. See 3rd Monroe, page 192; 6 Mo. Rep. 439; Theobald on Principal and Agent, page 244 and 256. 2. The judgment being general was not therefore void, and if not void, it was both binding and operative until reversed upon appeal or by writ of error.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Callaway Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. From all that appears upon, the record, J. Barton Bates had no authority either to practice as an attorney at law, or to prosecute the said notice for said defendant. See 3rd Monroe, page 192; 6 Mo. Rep. 439; Theobald on Principal and Agent, page 244 and 256. 2. The judgment being general was not therefore void, and if not void, it was both binding and operative until reversed upon appeal or by writ of error. If the court have jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the party defendant have either actual or constructive notice of the…
1Opinion of the Court
McBride, J„,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Isaac Clark commenced in the Callaway Circuit Court, at the October term, 1843, his action against Marshall Holliday. The attachment was levied on the real estate of the def endant, and as to the defendant, returned “not found in Callaway county.” At the return term, the defendant not appearing to the action, the plaintiff obtained an order of publication against him; and at the succeeding April term, 1844, the defendant still failing to enter his appearance, and publication having been made against him, the court entered a judgment of default,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Massey v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Bray v. McClurySupreme Court of Missouri · 1874