Boernstein v. Heinrichs
| Decision Date | 31 October 1856 |
| Citation | 24 Mo. 26 |
| Parties | BOERNSTEIN, Respondent, v. HEINRICHS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a cause is set for trial, and the defendant by agreement of plaintiff is allowed until the day of trial to file his answer; held, that it is not erroneous to refuse to set aside a judgment by default against him for want of an answer, where the reason urged for setting aside the same is that the defendant and his counsel were, during the day on which the case was set for trial, in attendance in another court, the one as witness, the other as counsel, in a cause there on trial.
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
Kribben, for appellant.
S. H. Gardner, for respondent.
The judgment is affirmed. The affidavit made out no sufficient excuse for his default, and the facts stated in the petition constitute a good cause of action against the defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Carp
... ... State to use v. O'Neill, 4 ... Mo.App. 221; Gehrke v. Job, 59 Mo. 522; Gilstrap ... v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 491; Boerstein v ... Heinrichs, 24 Mo. 26; Edwards v. Watkins, 17 ... Mo. 273; Austin v. Nelson, 11 Mo. 192; ... Bosbyshell v. Summers, 40 Mo. 172; Palmer v ... Russell, 34 Mo ... ...
-
Biebinger v. Taylor
...3 Am. Law Times, 350; S. C., 3 Cent. Law Jour. 527; Kribben vs. Eckelcamp, 34 Mo. 480-482; Bosbyshell vs. Summers, 40 Mo. 172; Boernstein vs. Heinrich, 24 Mo. 26; Ridgley vs. Steamboat Reindeer, 27 Mo. 444; Field vs. Matson, 8 Mo. 686; Kerby vs. Chadwell, 10 Mo. 393; 59 Mo. 522; Wagn. Stat.......
-
Bosbyshell v. Summers
...omitted to attend at the trial, and for that reason it would have been error for the lower court to grant them a new trial--Boernstein v. Heinrichs, 24 Mo. 26; Jacob v. McKean, 24 Mo. 40 (Shreve, att'y); Stout v. Calvert, 6 Mo. 254; Steigers v. Darby, 9 Mo. 679; 19 Mo. 151. III. A fortiori,......