TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walker v. Stoddard

Walker v. Stoddard Circuit Judge

Walker v. Stoddard, 31 Mo. 123 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1860
Judges
Other, Scott
Citations
31 Mo. 123
Headnotes
1. A judge would not be required by the supreme court to sign as a bill of exceptions a document containing neither the testimony nor the motions made and overruled, but simply calling for their insertion therein.
Summary
Application for'a Mandamus. The facts in' this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition to compel the judge of the circuit court of Stoddard county [to sign a bill of exceptions]. Without inquiring at this time in relation to the power of this court over the subject of the petition, it will be sufficient to observe that annexed to the petition for a mandamus is a copy of the bill of exceptions, which the judge was required to sign. The signing of such an instrument would avail the party nothing. Such a bill of exceptions would avail in this court no more than a piece of blank paper. Instead of setting out the evidence to be preserved in the bill of exceptions, there is this memorandum: “Here insert testimony.” Instead of setting out the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, there is the following note: “ Here insert motion.” It is obvious that nothing can be gained by signing such a bill of exceptions, as it is nothing more than a skeleton. Motion for a mandamus overruled., The other judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1877–1878: 11887–1888: 11891–1892: 11903–1904: 31905–1906: 11909–1910: 11921–1922: 218772026peak 1903 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tipton v. Renner105 Mo. 1 (1891)
  2. State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson86 S.W. 177 (Mo. 1905)
  3. Atchison & Nebraska Railroad v. Wagner19 Kan. 335 (1877)
  4. State ex rel. Guinan v. Jarrott81 S.W. 876 (Mo. 1904)
  5. Fenn v. Reber132 S.W. 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
  6. Roberts v. Bartlett26 Mo. App. 611 (1887)

Most recent

  1. Riggins v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.233 S.W. 67 (Mo. Ct. App. 1921)
  2. Riggins v. Missouri Pacific Railroad208 Mo. App. 26 (1921)
  3. Fenn v. Reber132 S.W. 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
  4. State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson86 S.W. 177 (Mo. 1905)
  5. State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson83 S.W. 472 (Mo. 1904)
  6. Forbs v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.82 S.W. 562 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list