Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Gildersleeve
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. ' James E. Withrow, Judge. The proceeding by way of forfeiture and scire facias was wholly irregular, without jurisdiction in the court and void. It is immaterial liow the proceeding in contempt should be considered — that is, whether as a civil or a criminal case. The appeal bond was the one ordinarily given in civil causes. The obligation was to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. ' James E. Withrow, Judge. The proceeding by way of forfeiture and scire facias was wholly irregular, without jurisdiction in the court and void. It is immaterial liow the proceeding in contempt should be considered — that is, whether as a civil or a criminal case. The appeal bond was the one ordinarily given in civil causes. The obligation was to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company. The principal and surety were “held and firmly bound unto the Chicago & Burlington Railway Company.” “A surety has the right to stand on the letter of…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a scire facias proceeding on a forfeited recognizance in appeal, as for bail. McDonald, the surety on the recognizance, demurred to the scire facias, and upon this demurrer being overruled, he refused to further plead thereto. Thereafter, the court entered final judgment awarding execution. *373etc., and from this judgment McDonald alone prosecutes the appeal.
It appears that one Gildersleeve, principal in the recognizance on which McDonald was surety, was engaged in the business of a ticket broker in St. Louis, and plaintiff, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, instituted a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. BlandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. RandolphSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. GildersleeveSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- State v. PottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Teefey v. TeefeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
- Smith v. ClothierSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
- Limerick v. RibackMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Teefey v. TeefeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1976