Consaul v. Lidell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. 1st. We hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the motion for a new trial, and was competent to grant or refuse it, that it was constrained to do one or the other of these two things. Here then was a function without any specific legal remedy. The court was right in -coining at the difficulty in some way that justice might be done.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. 1st. We hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the motion for a new trial, and was competent to grant or refuse it, that it was constrained to do one or the other of these two things. Here then was a function without any specific legal remedy. The court was right in -coining at the difficulty in some way that justice might be done. All that could reasonably be required was that it should conform its proceedings to peculiar exigencies and circumstances of the case. This was done. The appellee not agreeing with the garnishees as to the evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Tompkins, Judge.
This was a suit commenced by Jenkins against Lideil, in the circuit court, in which judgment was rendered for Jenkins.
Jenkins moved the court to strike from “ the record in this cause a bill of exceptions signed by the court for the garnishees, Robert Barbour and Joseph Consaul, as irregularly signed and made a port of the record. This motion was overruled by the court, and the decision of the court overriding such motion was excepted to.
The judge of the circuit court has made a statement of the case, of which a copy will be taken, as better calculated…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Smith v. Ohio Millers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Stirling v. WagnerWyoming Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Brown v. WallsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Fenn v. ReberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Ellis v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.