Thompson v. Marshall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. Geo. W. Shoemaker, Special Judge. (1) Defendant’s motion for a change of venue should have been sustained. The notice was sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. Geo. W. Shoemaker, Special Judge. (1) Defendant’s motion for a change of venue should have been sustained. The notice was sufficient. Reed v. State, 11 Mo. 380; Corpenny v. Sedalia, 57 Mo. 88; Dowling v. Allen, 88 Mo. 293. (2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction of the case, or the parties thereto, no account or statement having been filed with the justice or returned with the transcript into the circuit court, should have been sustained. Gideon v. Hughes, 21 Mo. App. 528; McQuoid v. Lamb, 19 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— This action was instituted before a justice of the peace at the instance of a minor, and is for work and labor performed by the minor. He recovered before the justice and again in the circuit court. Defendant appeals.
*148In the circuit court there was a motion for change of venue filed at the second term of the circuit court after the appeal, alleging as ground therefor the prejudice of the circuit judge and the inhabitants of Gentry county. The court granted the change as to the first cause, and, refusing to proceed further, George W. Shoemaker, Esq., an attorney-at-law, was elected by the bar…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Olin v. ZeiglerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Lowe v. SinklearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Barr v. BlombergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sitton v. SappMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Tower-Doyle Commission Co. v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Skinner v. YoungMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904