State ex rel. Von Phul v. Harrison
Missouri Court of Appeals
Original Proceeding by Writ of Prohibition.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
— The following facts are conceded by respondents’ demurrer to the relators’ application for the writ. ' An ■ appeal from a justice in the *347cause of McCormick v. Von Phul et al. was dismissed for want of prosecution by tbe St. Louis circuit court on March 16, 1891. A motion to set aside tbe dismissal was at once filed by tbe appellant, and was sustained at tbe next succeeding term by tbe following order entered of record.
“Tbe court, having duly considered tbe motion to set aside tbe order of dismissal herein, doth sustain tbe same on condition that plaintiff pay tbe costs of tbe February term,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State ex rel. Dawson v. St. Louis Court of AppealsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- State ex rel. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. SeayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Danforth v. LoweSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Hartman v. OlveraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Willis & Co. v. Planters' & Merchants' Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hilgert v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Halsey v. RichardsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909