Legal Opinion

Robinson v. Hood

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1878PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from Jasper Common Pleas Court. — Hon. E. V. Brown, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.

i. bill of exoepTI0NS — 1. Motion for new trial not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, we, therefore, cannot n°tiee any of the alleged errors occurring ¿ t the trial. Jefferson City v. Opel, ante p. 394; Collins v. Barding, 65 Mo. 496; Stevenson v. Saline County Ib. 425.

2. infancy : practice. 2. It is, however, insisted that the judgment must be reversed because of the grounds urged by the motion in arrest. As to Sarah A. Robinson, one of the minors who became of age-pending the trial, it was perfectly competent for the court to permit her to come in- and sue as an adult co-plaintiff.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jones v. SteeleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
  2. Collins v. BardingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  3. Weber v. DegenhardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cox v. WrinkleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  2. Brandon v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  3. Judson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  4. Darr v. DarrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  5. Holt v. SimmonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API