Bartling v. Jamison
Supreme Court of Missouri
Application for writ of prohibition. I. The Legislature intended to confer no more right or power upon the Probate Court to grant a new trial than upon a justice of the peace. (Gen. Slat. 1865, §§ 2, 8, p. 514; 1 Mo. 589 ; 8 Mo. 45 ; Gen. Stat. 1865, § 17, p. 713.) No rule of the probate judge is regarded. No error is charged.
Read the full summary
Application for writ of prohibition. I. The Legislature intended to confer no more right or power upon the Probate Court to grant a new trial than upon a justice of the peace. (Gen. Slat. 1865, §§ 2, 8, p. 514; 1 Mo. 589 ; 8 Mo. 45 ; Gen. Stat. 1865, § 17, p. 713.) No rule of the probate judge is regarded. No error is charged. The circuit judge, on appeal to the Circuit Court, simply proceeds to try the case anew, and makes and completes a record for the District and Supreme Courts. The ecclesiastical and chancery courts had unquestioned right to grant a new trial, but they made and completed…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
John Bartling presents to this court his petition setting forth that upon information of W. C. Jamison, as administrator of *143estate of Edgar J. Noe, a citation was issued against bim by .Joseph P. Yastine, Judge of the Probate Court of St. Louis county, for the discovery of concealed property belonging to saiestate. The charge was that he had concealed and embezzled a solitaire diamond ring, and the person so charged, the applicant for this writ, appeared and claimed that the ring was presented to him by deceased; and upon trial by jury the verdict was in his favor. The administrator applied…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Ewart v. PenistonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Aull v. St. Louis Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Link v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Rottmann v. SchmuckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- In Re Application of Henry County Mutual Burial Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.