Arthur Fritsch Foundry & Machine Co. v. Goodwin Manufacturing Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arthur Fritsch Foundry & Machine Co. v. Goodwin Manufacturing Co.

96 Mo. App. 631

DecidedDecember 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 96 Mo. App. 631 (Arthur Fritsch Foundry & Machine Co. v. Goodwin Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Fritsch Foundry & Machine Co. v. Goodwin Manufacturing Co., 96 Mo. App. 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has moved for an affirmance of a judgment of the circuit court in the city of St. Louis, on a certificate (pursuant to section 812, R. S. 1899) showing that a judgment was rendered by that court, February 11, 1902, for defendant in this cause and that an appeal'was granted to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, March 21, 1902. No steps appear to have been taken to prosecute the appeal.

The twenty-fourth rule of practice of this court requires a written notice of such a motion as preliminary to any action thereon by the court; but in this instance counsel of record for appellant has appeared at the bar, on the submission of the motion, and waived other service thereof, and consented to the dismissal of the appeal. The required notice may be so waived, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed, at the cost of the appellant,

all the judges concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has moved for an affirmance of a judgment of the circuit court in the city of St. Louis, on a certificate (pursuant to section 812, R. S. 1899) showing that a judgment was rendered by that court, February 11, 1902, for defendant in this cause and that an appeal'was granted to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, March 21, 1902. No steps appear to have been taken to prosecute the appeal.

The twenty-fourth rule of practice of this court requires a written notice of such a motion as preliminary to any action thereon by the court; but in this instance counsel of record for appellant has appeared at the bar, on the submission of the motion, and waived other service thereof, and consented to the dismissal of the appeal. The required notice may be so waived, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed, at the cost of the appellant,

all the judges concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 Mo. App. 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-fritsch-foundry-machine-co-v-goodwin-manufacturing-co-moctapp-1902.