Bohn v. Devlin
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Napton, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant in this case did not reside in the township where the suit was brought, and the proceeding, being in this respect irregular, could no doubt have been set aside had the proper steps been taken in time. But the defendant appeared and consented to a continuance. As the justice had undoubted jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the appearance and consent of the defendant gave jurisdiction of the person, the defects and irregularity in the process must be considered as waived. (Davis v. Wood, 7 Mo.-; Myers v. Woolfolk, 3 Mo. 246 ; Busnell and others v. Lynch, 3 Mo. 261 ; Malone v. Clark, 2 Hill, 657 .)
*320 The notice to take depositions was insufficient, as it was not signed. As it bad no signature, and the plaintiff to whom it was addressed did not attend at the time and place specified in the notice, either in person or by attorney, the deposition was, in our opinion, properly suppressed.
The other judges concurring, judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.