Moran v. January
John Moran v. D. A. January
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.
Wagner, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case a judgment was regularly rendered for the plaintiff, and twelve days after the rendition of the same, and without leave of court, a motion was filed for a new trial.
The motion was overruled. The statute provides that all motions for new trials or in arrest of judgment shall be made within four days after the trial, if the term shall so long con-tinue, and if not, then before the end of the term. (2 W. S. 1059, § 6.)
Under the above section the uniform course of decision has been, that unless the motion is filed within the four days prescribed, no writ of error or appeal will lie’from the judgment of the court overruling the same. (State vs. Marshall, 36 Mo., 400 ; Richmond vs. Wardlaw, 36 Mo., 313 ; Banks vs. Lades, 39 Mo., 406 ; Bishop vs. Ransom, 39 Mo., 416 ; Farmers Bank vs. Bayliss, 41 Mo., 274 ; Long vs. Towl, 41 Mo., 398 ; Morgner vs. Kister, 42 Mo., 466 .)
It follows therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed.
The other Judges concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 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.