St. Louis v. Babcock
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to -St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.’ — Ron. 'David Murphy, Judge. (1) This case is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. Kansas City v. Neal, 122 Mo. 234; St. Louis v. Schoenbush, 95 Mo. 618; Ex parte Holwedell, 74 Mo. 295; St. Louis v. Robinson, 55 Mo.
Read the full summary
Error to -St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.’ — Ron. 'David Murphy, Judge. (1) This case is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. Kansas City v. Neal, 122 Mo. 234; St. Louis v. Schoenbush, 95 Mo. 618; Ex parte Holwedell, 74 Mo. 295; St. Louis v. Robinson, 55 Mo. App. 256. (2) Being a civil proceeding, all the errors of the trial court which, have been properly preserved are subject to review and the error being patent of record, motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were not necessary. South St. Joe Land Co. V. Bretz, 125 Mo. 418; State ex re! v. Scott, 104 Mo. 26; Mclntire…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
Action on city ordinance section 981 of article 17,188, of Revised Ordinances, as follows: “Trespassing upon property — forbidden.—It shall be unlawful for any person, without the consent of the owner or his agent, to enter on any inclosed or improved real estate, lot or parcel of ground in the city of St. Louis, or to deposit thereon, *156or remove therefrom any material substance, earth, dirt, ashes, refuse, turf or other article or thing whatsoever."
The complaint fIle~t against clef enclant is as follows:
"State of Missouri, Oity of St. Louis.
ss.
August 12, 1897.
"Austin E. Babcock,
"To the Oity…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Steele v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Hays v. Missouri Pacific Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Miller v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Ashby v. Elsberry & New Hope Gravel Road Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Tootle v. BuckinghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.