Shepard v. Grier
| Decision Date | 07 November 1911 |
| Citation | 140 S.W. 932,160 Mo. App. 613 |
| Parties | SHEPARD v. GRIER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Action by C. G. Shepard against H. P. Grier and others. From a judgment refusing to make a nunc pro tunc entry, defendants appeal. Affirmed by the Springfield Court of Appeals (149 Mo. App. 428, 129 S. W. 1049), and transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals. Affirmed.
W. W. Corbett, for appellants. A. L. Oliver and C. G. Shepard, for respondent.
This case, an appeal from the action of the circuit court of Pemiscot county in refusing to enter of record what was claimed to have been an entry of appearance by plaintiff (respondent here) in a case appealed by defendants from a justice of the peace, the appearance claimed to have been entered at a prior term of the circuit court, was originally brought to this court from the circuit court of Pemiscot county, and was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals, in accordance with the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of this state, approved June 12, 1909, now section 3939, R. S. 1909. The case was there submitted on briefs without oral argument, and the judgment of the circuit court affirmed, the opinion written by Presiding Judge Nixon. That opinion will be found in 149 Mo. App. 428, 129 S. W. 1049, the case there being reported under the title "Shepard v. Tinsley et al." The Supreme Court subsequently declared the act of the Legislature above referred to unconstitutional, and held that the Springfield Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction in causes so transferred, even when those cases had been submitted to that court by the respective parties. See State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S. W. 336; State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538; State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S. W. 342. This cause was accordingly sent back to this court by the Springfield Court of Appeals. It was argued before us orally by counsel for appellants, counsel for respondent submitting it on brief.
Accepting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hartmann
...exist in the minute book or the judge's docket, on which to base a nunc pro tunc order. Lindsey v. Nagel, 157 Mo.App. 128; Shephard v. Greer, 160 Mo.App. 613; Tholen Neidemeyer, 185 Mo.App. 250; Osagera v. Schaff, 293 Mo. 333. And, (b) The judge, at a subsequent term, may correct his record......
-
State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hartmann.
...exist in the minute book or the judge's docket, on which to base a nunc pro tunc order. Lindsey v. Nagel, 157 Mo. App. 128; Shephard v. Greer, 160 Mo. App. 613; Tholen v. Neidemeyer, 185 Mo. App. 250; Osagera v. Schaff, 293 Mo. 333. And, (b) The judge, at a subsequent term, may correct his ......
-
Thaler v. Niedermeyer
... ... v. Holschlag, 144 Mo. 253; Becher v. Deuser, ... 169 Mo. 159; State v. Libby, 203 Mo. 596; Murphy ... v. Cooperage Co., 168 Mo.App. 11; Shepard v ... Grier, 160 Mo.App. 613; Callier v. Railroad, ... 158 Mo.App. 249; Coy v. Landers, 146 Mo.App. 413; ... Publishing Co. v. Allen, 134 Mo.App ... ...
-
Thaler v. Niedermeyer
...Mo. App. loc. cit. 420, 125 S. W. 789; Lindsey v. Nagel, 157 Mo. App. 128, 137 S. W. 912; Callier v. Railroad, supra; Shepard v. Grier, 160 Mo. App. 613, 140 S. W. 932. But the settled rule, reiterated in these and other cases, recognizes that such nunc pro tunc entries may properly be made......