Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 27, 1912Published

Appeal from Worth. Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. G. Ellison, Judge. (1) The law does not require the running of trains on Sunday, because Sunday is not specifically named, and the words “every day” do not include Sunday for following reasons: (a) In computing time, Sunday is not counted as a day in legal proceedings. State v. May, 142 Mo. 149'; Jordan v. Railway, 92 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Worth. Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. G. Ellison, Judge. (1) The law does not require the running of trains on Sunday, because Sunday is not specifically named, and the words “every day” do not include Sunday for following reasons: (a) In computing time, Sunday is not counted as a day in legal proceedings. State v. May, 142 Mo. 149'; Jordan v. Railway, 92 Mo. App. 85. (b) It is the policy of our law to consider Sunday as excluded in computing time, as the statute on that subject (Sec. 4160) provides that “if the last day he Sunday, it shall he excluded.” (c) If it had been intended to…

1Concurrence

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION.

WOODSON, J.

— I adhere to the views expressed in the opinion filed in this case by me, in Division No. 1, and refile it here; and for the reasons therein stated, as well as those expressed by our learned Special Judge James S. Botsford, I concur in the opinion filed herein by him in toto.

WOODSON, J.

— On August 3, 1907, the prosecuting attorney of Worth county filed an information against the defendant, in the circuit court of that county, charging the defendant, a railroad corporation, maintaining a line of railroad and operating its trains of ears thereon, in this…

2Cases cited76 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia Ex Rel. Soc. for Relief of Distressed PilotsSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
  5. Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API