Shotwell v. State
John W. Shotwell v. The State of Missouri
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.
Holmes, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It appears that the plaintiff made a motion in the Ray county Circuit Court for permission to practise in that court as an attorney-at-law without having taken the oath of loyalty, as required by the constitution of this State. The motion being granted, the Circuit Attorney for the State excepted, and tendered a bill of exceptions, which docs not appear by this transcript to have been allowed and signed by the judge of the court below. The point which appears to have been raised, has already been decided in this court in the cases of the State v. Garesché, and the State v. Cum *360 mings (October term, 1865, at St. Louis). But this one does not come hero in such a shape that we can take any notice of the case. There is properly no bill of exceptions, nor any appeal or writ of error. No attorney appears for either party. The case must be stricken off the docket.
J udge Wagner concurs; J udge Lovelace absent.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.