Bunding v. Blumenthous
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Cbmmon Pleas. The appellant’s pleas not having been answered, they might consider them as confessed, and could not be prepared to sustain them. It operated, therefore,- as a surprise, to compel them to go to trial&wkey;See 1 Mr. Rep., Resher vs. Thomas, p. 739, and 4 Mo.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Cbmmon Pleas. The appellant’s pleas not having been answered, they might consider them as confessed, and could not be prepared to sustain them. It operated, therefore,- as a surprise, to compel them to go to trial&wkey;See 1 Mr. Rep., Resher vs. Thomas, p. 739, and 4 Mo. Rep., Dempsey vs. Harrison, 270. 1. The replication to defendant’s plea of set-off; though filed out of time, was .yet filed without objection by appellants, and before any motion was made by them for a nonsuit or continuance. Then it was too late to move that the plaintiff be non prosdd, after…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action by petition in debt, the writ being returnable to the February term, 1843. At that term, the appellant^ pleaded nil debit, and a set-off. The cause was set for trial on the 12th March, 1844, but was not reached until the 13th; on the morning of that day, plaintiff filed replications, and the defendant afterwards, (and without having objected to the filing of the replications,) moved the court for a continuance, for the reason, that said replications were filed out of time. The court refused to grant the continuance, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The error complained…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dempsey v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1836