Webb v. Coonce
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. That the court did not err in refusing to set aside the judgment by default, 1st. Because the affidavits of Hockaday do not show proper diligence. 4 Mo. R., 557; 6 do., 254; 7 do., 6; 7 do!, 25. 2nd. Because the affidavits are not by Webb, and no reason or cause is given why not, as required. 2 Cow. R., 581. 3rd.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. That the court did not err in refusing to set aside the judgment by default, 1st. Because the affidavits of Hockaday do not show proper diligence. 4 Mo. R., 557; 6 do., 254; 7 do., 6; 7 do!, 25. 2nd. Because the affidavits are not by Webb, and no reason or cause is given why not, as required. 2 Cow. R., 581. 3rd. Because the affidavits do not show a defence to the merits, but only that “ Webb has a valid defence,” which may be true, for many reasons, without being a defence to the merits or a meritorious defence, as required in 7 Mo. R., 25. It might be…
1Opinion of the CourtNap.ton, J.
This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts. The first count set forth, in substance, that it was agreed between Coonce and Webb, that Coonce would, by a specified time, at Webb’s landing, in Lafayette county, take on his boat, the Radnor, about 335 bales of hemp, weighing at least sixty tons, and .transport the same to St. Louis, at the price of $4 per ton; that Coonce reached the landing at the time agreed on, ready and willing to take the hemp, but Webb refused to let him have it. The second.count, reciting that Coonce was engaged in the carrying trade between St.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dean v. RitterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853