City of St. Joseph v. Ensworth

65 Mo. 628
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

There is no exception saved to the overruling of the motion to set aside the non-suit. Exceptions must be saved to each specific ruling as it occurs during the progress of the cause, and it will not do, as was attempted here, to fail to except when the motion to set aside the non-suit was overruled, and then seek to cure the [629] omission by a general exception when the motion in arrest is overruled. (Harrison v. Bartlett, 51 Mo. 170). Judgment affirmed. All concur. Arrirmed.

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

City of St. Joseph v. Ensworth, 65 Mo. 628 (Mo. 1877).

65 Mo. 628 (City of St. Joseph v. Ensworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
157 S.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Moran v. Stewart
151 S.W. 439 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
McKee v. Jones Dry Goods Co.
132 S.W. 1191 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Bates v. Ruth & Mengal Realty Co.
88 Mo. App. 550 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co.
27 S.W. 715 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Taylor v. Switzer
19 S.W. 735 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Weber v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.
100 Mo. 194 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
Hubbard v. Quisenberry
32 Mo. App. 459 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
State ex rel. Dopkins v. Hitchcock
86 Mo. 231 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Barnes v. McMullins
78 Mo. 260 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Hill v. Alexander
77 Mo. 296 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Wilson v. Haxby
76 Mo. 345 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)