Dannefelser v. Weigel
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Si. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
In our opinion, the court ought to have sustained the plaintiffs motion to suppress the deposition of Louisa Bollet.
The inattention and negligence of attorneys ought not to be encouraged or countenanced; but in this case Mr. Spies was not guilty of either, but acted under an emergency and on assurances that would have lulled the most prudent man into security. It appears from his affidavit that he attended for his client on the day and hour and at the place appointed by the defendant in his notice for taking depositions ; that he found there the notary, the witness, the defendant and Mr.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Williams v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
- St. Charles Savings Bank v. DenkeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Robbins v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Heinbockle v. ZugbaumMontana Supreme Court · 1885
- Hurt v. FordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.