Legal Opinion

Young v. Hudson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1889PublishedCited by 28 opinions

Error to Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Noah M. G-ivan, . Judge. Ti-ie action is based on three demands, stated as separate counts, two of which are upon promissory notes made by defendant to a bank, and the third is upon an account for merchandise sold, all alleged to have been regularly transferred to plaintiff. The proceedings began by attachment based on several grounds.

Read the full summary

Error to Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Noah M. G-ivan, . Judge. Ti-ie action is based on three demands, stated as separate counts, two of which are upon promissory notes made by defendant to a bank, and the third is upon an account for merchandise sold, all alleged to have been regularly transferred to plaintiff. The proceedings began by attachment based on several grounds. There were two trials; the first, on the defendant’s plea denying the grounds of attachment, the second, on the merits. Both resulted in favor of plaintiff. After the trial of the issue in abatement, defendant moved for a new…

1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.

Plaintiff objects to the consideration of defendant’s exceptions at the trial on the plea in abatement, insisting that they are not properly subject to examination upon writ of error.

Our statute (R. S. 1879, sec 439) regulating such proceedings is not altogether free of ambiguity respecting the proper time and effect of steps to be taken by a defendant for a review. But bringing into view the law previously in force, as interpreted by this court, and endeavoring to give effect to the apparent purpose of the present enactment, we consider its fair import to be that, upon a finding for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Duncan v. ForgeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. State ex rel. Hyatt v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  3. C. Aultman & Co. v. DaggsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Falconio v. LarsenOregon Supreme Court · 1897
  5. O'Keefe v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907

23 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