Frick Co. v. Caffery
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the-JacTcson Circuit Court. — Hon. James Gibson, Judge. In granting a new trial the court is not necessarily •confined to the grounds enumerated in the statute. LeaTiey v. Dugdale, 41 Mo. 517; Fine v. Rogers, 15 Mo. 315. Where a defendant is suddenly prostrated by sickness and cannot communicate with his counsel, who proceed to trial not knowing the cause of his client’s absence, a new trial should be granted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the-JacTcson Circuit Court. — Hon. James Gibson, Judge. In granting a new trial the court is not necessarily •confined to the grounds enumerated in the statute. LeaTiey v. Dugdale, 41 Mo. 517; Fine v. Rogers, 15 Mo. 315. Where a defendant is suddenly prostrated by sickness and cannot communicate with his counsel, who proceed to trial not knowing the cause of his client’s absence, a new trial should be granted. White v. Marlin, 63 Ga. 659. Applications for continuance must be made by motion accompanied by affidavit setting forth the statutory grounds. R. S., secs. 2124, 2126. It is…
1Opinion of the CourtGriLL, J.
The petition in this cause was filed on November 3, 1889, and sets forth a cause of action against defendant as guarantor of three notes executed by Jerome Terry, in Michigan, in 1884. The answer was a general denial. A jury was waived and the cause was tried June 10, 1890, by the court. On June 16, the court found for plaintiff and rendered judgment against defendant for $772.50. The evidence offered by plaintiff and defendant is not given in the bill of exceptions, but it is conceded to have been sufficient to support the finding of the court. On June 19, 1890, the defendant filed a motion…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nordmanser v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- Huber v. ParadiseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1937