Holder v. Chidister

Missouri Court of Appeals

Holder v. Chidister

162 S.W. 762, 177 Mo. App. 415, 1914 Mo. App. LEXIS 83

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 162 S.W. 762 (Holder v. Chidister) 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

Holder v. Chidister, 162 S.W. 762, 177 Mo. App. 415, 1914 Mo. App. LEXIS 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, P. J.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment by default against the defendant in the circuit court, which, on the fourth day thereafter and during the same term of court, the defendant moved to set aside, accompanying his motion by an affidavit and his proposed answer. Upon the hearing of defendant’s motion, supported by affidavits and oral testimony, the court promptly sustained the same and the plaintiff has appealed.

Since it has been held by the Supreme Court that Section 2038, Revised Statutes of 1909, does not authorize an appeal in a case of this kind (Crossland v. Admire, 118 Mo. 87, 24 S. W. 154; Breed v. Hobart, 187 Mo. 140, 86 S. W. 108), it becomes our duty to dismiss the appeal herein, which is accordingly done; but, in doing so, we come in conflict with the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of Icing Co. v. Kemper, 166 Mo. App. 613, 149 S. W. 1163, and in Miller v. Crawford, 140 Mo. App. 711, 126 S. W. 984, and shall, therefore, follow the precedent established by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Bussiere v. Sayman, 171 Mo. App. 11, 153 S. W. 507, and certify this case to the Supreme Court. It is so ordered.

Sturgis and Farrington, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERTSON, P. J.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment by default against the defendant in the circuit court, which, on the fourth day thereafter and during the same term of court, the defendant moved to set aside, accompanying his motion by an affidavit and his proposed answer. Upon the hearing of defendant’s motion, supported by affidavits and oral testimony, the court promptly sustained the same and the plaintiff has appealed.

Since it has been held by the Supreme Court that Section 2038, Revised Statutes of 1909, does not authorize an appeal in a case of this kind (Crossland v. Admire, 118 Mo. 87, 24 S. W. 154; Breed v. Hobart, 187 Mo. 140, 86 S. W. 108), it becomes our duty to dismiss the appeal herein, which is accordingly done; but, in doing so, we come in conflict with the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of Icing Co. v. Kemper, 166 Mo. App. 613, 149 S. W. 1163, and in Miller v. Crawford, 140 Mo. App. 711, 126 S. W. 984, and shall, therefore, follow the precedent established by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Bussiere v. Sayman, 171 Mo. App. 11, 153 S. W. 507, and certify this case to the Supreme Court. It is so ordered.

Sturgis and Farrington, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.W. 762, 177 Mo. App. 415, 1914 Mo. App. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holder-v-chidister-moctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack