Moran v. January
| Decision Date | 31 March 1873 |
| Citation | 52 Mo. 523 |
| Parties | JOHN MORAN, Respondent, v. D. A. JANUARY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Thos. Grace, and John Hallum, for Respondent.
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.)
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 continue, 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 lie from the judgment of the court overruling the same. (State vs. Marshall, 36 Mo., 400; Richmond vs. Wardlaw, 36 Mo., 313; Banks vs. Lades, 39 Mo., 406; Bishop vs. Ransom, 39 Mo., 416; Farmers Bank vs. Bayliss, 41 Mo., 274; Long vs. Towl, 41 Mo., 398; Morgner vs. Kister, 42 Mo., 466.)
It follows therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed.
The other Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mirrielees v. Wabash Railroad Company
...was filed out of time. The doctrine of the Williams' case has since been followed in State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. l. c. 400 at 404; Moran v. January, 52 Mo. 523; Bollinger Carrier, 79 Mo. 318. But in State ex rel. Brainerd v. Adams, 84 Mo. 310, it was held that a trial court can not, of its ow......
-
Lilly v. Menke
... ... absolutely; that by virtue of said election she became seized ... of one half of said real estate; that afterward, on January ... 12, 1882, she made her last will and testament, devising her ... estate to Elizabeth Smith, Agnes and William A. Polking, and ... Maria T ... 335; ... Lawther v. Agee (1864), 34 Mo. 372; Banks v ... Lades (1867), 39 Mo. 406; Morgner v. Kister ... (1868), 42 Mo.App. 466; Moran v. January (1873), 52 ... In the ... case last named, the appeal was dismissed, and in Davis ... v. Colt (1862), 31 Mo. 530, ... ...
-
Maloney v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... cause of action." ... On the ... same day the court adjourned until January 9, 1892. On ... January 9, 1892, the motion for judgment filed by defendant ... March 11, 1891, was, by the court, overruled and defendant ... days after the trial as prescribed by the statute. Welsh ... v. St. Louis, 73 Mo. 71; Moran v. January, 52 ... Mo. 523; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; State v ... Brooks, 92 Mo. 542. See, also, State v. Arnold, ... 54 Mo.App. 660; ... ...
-
McPike v. McPike
...the administrator predicated thereon are, therefore, erroneous. Revised Statutes, 1879, sec. 3622; Welch v. St. Louis, 73 Mo. 73; Moran v. January, 52 Mo. 523; Dale Patterson, 63 Mo. 98; State v. Duckworth, 68 Mo. 156; Wright v. Sheur, 55 Mo. 70; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570. (15) The disallow......