State ex rel. Hannon v. Woodson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Original Proceedings by Mandamus. (1) The respondents were without any discretion in the matter. The record establishes the fact of relators’ right to a change of venue. In such case the remedy by mandamus is clear. State ex rel. v. Higgins, 16 Mo. App. 328. The court has exercised its discretion. Gee v. Railway, 140 Mo. 314. It has adjudged the application sufficient; there is nothing to be done but to grant the change.
Read the full summary
Original Proceedings by Mandamus. (1) The respondents were without any discretion in the matter. The record establishes the fact of relators’ right to a change of venue. In such case the remedy by mandamus is clear. State ex rel. v. Higgins, 16 Mo. App. 328. The court has exercised its discretion. Gee v. Railway, 140 Mo. 314. It has adjudged the application sufficient; there is nothing to be done but to grant the change. State ex rel. v. O’Bryan, 102 Mo. 259; State ex rel. v. Wofford' 119 Mo. 315; 68 Tex, 494. (2) The object of the statute allowing change of venue "is to insure parties a…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is a proceeding by mandamus against respondents as Judges of the Buchanan Circuit Court. An alternative writ was issued to which respondents made return, whereupon relators filed a demurrer thereto and asked a peremptory writ. The following is the substance of the allegations in the alternative writ:
William P. Graham and Harry M. Tootle were appointed receivers of the Phoenix Loan Association by the circuit court of Buchanan county, and as such receivers they brought an action against relators on a bond for $1,067.43 alleged to have been executed by relators. The circuit court of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. GreenwadeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- State ex rel. Cottrell v. WoffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. HeadrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Gee v. St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Myers v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sanders v. DixonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- State ex rel. Scott v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Eudaley v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State ex rel. Bixman v. DentonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- State ex rel. Smith-Kernohan Co. v. DabbsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.