State v. Miller
Decision Date | 29 April 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 23036.,23036. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. BROCKMAN MFG. CO. v. MILLER, Circuit Judge. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John T. Sluggett, Jr., and Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, all of St. Louis, for relator.
Foristel & Eagleton, of St. Louis, for respondent.
Murat Boyle, of Kansas City, amicus curiæ.
This is an original action in mandamus, brought to compel a circuit judge of the city of St. Louis to sign a bill of exceptions. The action below was one at law. The relator herein was the defendant. There was a trial by a jury. Instructions were given and refused. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant sought to appeal.
Respondent's return admits the existence of the rule of practice above set forth, as obtaining in said division at the time of said trial in regard to the saving of exceptions, as follows:
Relator's petition, setting up the facts concerning the giving and refusing of instructions in this case, is as follows:
"Your petitioner further represents and shows to the court that at the close of all the evidence offered at the trial of the cause of Martha Kerte against your petitioner, each of the parties handed and submitted to the Honorable Granville Hogan, as the judge presiding at the trial of said cause, the instructions offered by each party; that the said judge took said instructions, and did not at any time notify or inform your petitioner, or announce in open court, which of said instructions he intended to give and read to the jury, and which of said instructions he intended to refuse; that the said judge of said division of said court, as aforesaid, did not at any time notify or inform your petitioner that he intended to refuse, and had refused, to give certain instructions requested by your petitioner, and simply, and without the knowledge of your petitioner, marked said instructions `Refused,' and that your petitioner did not know, and could not know, that the court had refused to give said instructions so requested by your Petitioner until the judge thereof failed to read said instructions to the jury; so that it was impossible for your petitioner to have excepted at the time to the action of the court in refusing to give and read said instructions so offered by your petitioner to the jury, nor did the court advise or inform your petitioner, or announce in open court, what instructions he intended to give and read to the jury on behalf of the plaintiff, or that he intended to give an instruction of his own motion, so that your petitioner did not know and could not know what instructions the court intended to give on behalf of the plaintiff, or of the court's own motion, until after said instructions had actually been read to the jury."
These facts are admitted by the respondent.
To this return the relator filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, alleging that on the averments of the alternative writ, admitted to be true by the return of the respondent, the relator was entitled as of right to the peremptory writ prayed for herein. In this manner is the issue presented.
I. It is beyond question that courts have an inherent power to prescribe rules of practice to regulate their proceedings in the administration of justice. The evident and recognized limitations upon this power are: First, that such rules must be in harmony with the law; and, second, they must be reasonable, in that their effect will not be to deprive any party of his legal rights. We have most recently held in State ex rel. Pedigo v. Robertson, 181 S. W. 987, following a number of earlier decisions, that courts of record have authority to make rules governing the practice before them when in harmony with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boyle v. Neisner Bros., Inc.
...220 U.S. 413. (b) Because an involuntary nonsuit having been taken by the plaintiff, the case did not become removable. State ex rel. v. Miller (Mo.), 241 S.W. 920; Am. Car. & Fdy. Co. v. Kettelhake, 236 U.S. 311; Great Northern R.R. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 275 (l.c. 282). (c) Because the Fe......
-
Boyle v. Neisner Bros.
... ... Sec ... 72, Title 28, Mason's U. S. Code; Wanner v. Bessinger & Co., 210 F. 96; Vadner v. Vadner, 259 F. 614; ... Miller v. Tele. Co., 279 F. 806; Tinker v. Bd ... of Supervisors, 292 F. 863; C. B. & Q. R. R. v ... Willard, 220 U.S. 413. (b) Because an ary ... nonsuit having been taken by the plaintiff, the case did not ... become removable. State ex rel. v. Miller (Mo.), 241 ... S.W. 920; Am. Car. & Fdy. Co. v. Kettelhake, 236 ... U.S. 311; Great Northern R. R. v. Alexander, 246 ... ...
-
Young v. Wheelock
... ... overruled at September Term, October 19, 1933 ... ... Affirmed ... Charles ... M. Miller, Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Gladney and Ralph T ... Finley for appellants; Silas H. Strawn of counsel ... (1) The ... demurrer ... offered by the defendants to corroborate and sustain the ... witness, Vincent Williamson. Underwood v. Fortune, 9 ... S.W.2d 846; State v. Jablousky, 169 Mo.App. 238, 152 ... S.W. 390; Adair v. K. C. Terminal Ry. Co., 282 Mo ... 133, 220 S.W. 926; Doyle D. G. Co. v. Lewis, 9 ... ...
-
Morris v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
... ... it required plaintiff to "establish" the negligence ... of defendants. 32 C. J. S., p. 1040; 64 C. J. 721; State ... v. Davis, 116 S.W.2d 110; Hurzon v. Schmitz, ... 262 Ill.App. 337; McMasters v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., ... 155 Ill.App. 648; Jones v ... no error apropos of the textbook. No exception is noted in ... the bill of exceptions. State ex rel. Brockman Mfg. Co ... v. Miller, 241 S.W. 920; Green v. Terminal R. Assn., 211 ... Mo. 18, 109 S.W. 715 ... ... OPINION ... Hyde, ... ...