Moran v. January
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. If a party against whom a verdict is found and judgment given fail to file his motion for a new trial within the four days prescribed by the statute, but- subsequently files his motion, which is overruled, no writ of error will lie from the judgment overruling the motion. (W% S., 1059, § 6; Richmond’s Adm’x vs. Wardlaw, 36 Mo., 313 ; Nordmanser vs. Hitchcock, 40 Mo., 178; Frederick vs. Rice, 46 Mo., 24; State vs. Marshall, 36 Mo., 400.)
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
In this case a judgment was regularly rendered for the plaintiff, and twelve days after the rendition of the same, and without leave of court, a motion was filed for a new trial.
The motion was overruled. The statute provides that all motions for new trials or in arrest of judgment shall be made within four days after the trial, if the term shall so long con-tinue, and if not, then before the end of the term. (2 W. S. 1059, § 6.)
Under the above section the uniform course of decision has been, that unless the motion is filed within the four days prescribed, no writ of error or appeal will…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. MarshallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Richmond's v. Wardlaw & PogueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Farmers' Bank v. BaylissSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Long v. TowlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Banks v. LadesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Exchange National Bank v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Mirrielees v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Maloney v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Bollinger v. CarrierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.