State ex rel. Bond v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition. (1) At common law the sustaining of a motion in arrest of judgment has the effect of putting an end to the case. On this proposition the authorities are uniform. 23 Oyc. Law and Proc., p. 825. And if it does not award a venire facias de novo, it operates as a discontinuance and dismisses defendant without day. 2 Ency.
Read the full summary
Prohibition. (1) At common law the sustaining of a motion in arrest of judgment has the effect of putting an end to the case. On this proposition the authorities are uniform. 23 Oyc. Law and Proc., p. 825. And if it does not award a venire facias de novo, it operates as a discontinuance and dismisses defendant without day. 2 Ency. PI. and Pr., p. 820'; 3 Blackstone’s Oomm. 393, note 20; Kauffman v. Kauffman, 2 Wharton (Pa.) 147; Butcher v. Metis, 1 Miles (Pa.) 233; Raber v. Jones, 40 Ind. 441. (2) The only instances in which the sustaining of a motion in arrest in a civil case, without any…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
This is*an original proceeding, instituted in this court, seeking to prohibit the respondent, as judge of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, from taking and further exercising jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject-matter involved in the case of Sallie Bond against this relator, pending therein.
The petition filed in this court asking for the writ is in words and figures as follows (omitting caption and jurat):
“Now comes relator Henry W. Bond and states to the court, and gives it to understand, that on the 36th day of January, 1904, respondent Sallie Bond filed a suit…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cloud v. Inhabitants of the Town of Pierce CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Ebersoll v. KrugSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Miller v. RalstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- White v. Kyle's LesseeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- Atwood v. ReyburnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stephens v. D. M. Oberman Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Howell v. Jackson CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Porter v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Lindman v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Selwyn Operating Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.