Hansbrough v. Fudge
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Morrison, Special Judge. Only such judgments and orders as are shown to have actually been made, can be supplied by nunc pro tunc entries.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Morrison, Special Judge. Only such judgments and orders as are shown to have actually been made, can be supplied by nunc pro tunc entries. Fockman v. Meatt, 49 Mo. 348; Saxton v. Smith, 50 Mo. 490 ; Dunn v. Raily, 58 Mo. 136; Jones v. Dart, 60 Mo. 365 ; Wooldridge v. Quinn, 70 Mo. 371; Filhin v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. 645. If the court failed to make the order at the April term, 1871, it could not be made as of that date on the 27th of December, 1877. Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. 360; Priest v. McMaster, 52 Mo. 62; State v. Jeffors, 64 Mo. 378. There is no…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The only question for determination in this cause, is the correctness of the ruling allowing the entry to be made nunc pro tunc of an order alleged to have been made, transferring the unfinished business in the above cause from the hands of Dale, former sheriff', into the hands of Briant, then sheriff', for completion. This cause was a partition proceeding; the unfinished business referred to being in part the collection of two promissory uotes executed by Bills, who purchased the lands sold, *309having Fudge as bis surety. Hays was the sheriff who conducted the sale in April, 1859. Hays went out…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- St. Francis Mill Co. v. SuggSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- State v. MasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Shepard v. TinsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Sperling v. StubblefieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.