Richey v. Branson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Don. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The court should not have forced defendant to trial during his absence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Don. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The court should not have forced defendant to trial during his absence. A continuance is largely within the discretion of the court, but in a case like this, where the defendant’s absence was occasioned by an order of the court itself, shortening the time to take the deposition, and was in good faith, preparing to take them, it was an abuse of sound discretion on the part of the court to force him to trial. State v. Wood, 68 Mo. 444. The contract between the parties was a joint one, and defendant’s instruction for…
1Opinion of the Court
Thompson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. „ This is an action brought to recover the sum of five hundred dollars, claimed to be due from the defendant *422to the plaintiff under a contract. The answer, after a denial of the allegations of the petition, except as thereafter admitted, set up a more extended version of the contract sued on than that stated in the petition, and further charged certain fraudulent representations in the procuring of it; and in a separate paragraph claimed damages in the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars by way of counter-claim. The new matter in the answer was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Bush v. HaeusslerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bowman v. BransonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Curry v. Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- American Livestock & Loan Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1914
- Geary v. Kansas City, Osceola & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Reid, Murdock & Co. v. LloydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893