Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 251

Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 251

By (author) 

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 edition. Excerpt: ...stands proved by Shull." This court and all other courts have decided that where a court finds a person guilty of contempt, that person could not sue the judge of the court or any other person connected with the trial of the law suit. McIntosh v. Bullard, 129 S. W. 87; Sweeney v. O'Dwyer, 197 N. Y. 499. (4) The appellant testified that he appeared in court on May 7 and 8, 1909, as an attorney for the Bank of North St. Joseph, one of the defendants, which Mrs. Keller was suing, to set aside certain void tax bills. He also alleges in his petition and swears that he appeared in said court under the process of the court, namely, a duces tecum subpoena. He alleges that questions were asked him by the court in open court, and he refused to answer. His complaint against the respondent is that the circuit court thought he ought to answer certain questions. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in the petition. No cause of action is therein stated, and if there was a cause of action it is absolutely disproved by the appellant in his evidence introduced on the trial of Shull v. Boyd. this case. McIntosh v. Bullard, 129 S. W. 85; Finley v. Refrigerator Co., 99 M0. 559. (5) When he was before the court as an attorney for the bank and under a notice to produce papers, and the subpoena duces tecu-m, and when the case was on trial before the court without a jury, and the court desired to inquire from him whether he had obeyed the process of the court, the court certainly had a right to inquire of him concerning the matter. McIntosh v. Bullard, 129 S. W. 87; State ex inf. v. Shepherd, 177 M0. 205. (6) Even if Boyd had complained to the court and tried to get the court to use its process, and did so in good faith, he would not be...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 288 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 15mm | 517g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236837908
  • 9781236837905