Kraleman v. Sippel

57 Mo. App. 598, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 239
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 17, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 Mo. App. 598 (Kraleman v. Sippel) 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
Kraleman v. Sippel, 57 Mo. App. 598, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1894).

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.

— The plaintiff contests the seat of the defendant as a member of the house of delegates of the city of St. Louis. Upon a trial of the cause, the defendant not appearing, the court upon the hearing of evidence rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns for the only error, that the judgment is void because the circuit court had no jurisdiction to determine the cause at the term at which it was determined.

Section 4710 of the Revised Statutes of 1889 provides: “Every court authorized to determine contested elections shall hear and determine the same in a summary manner, without any formal pleading; and the contest shall be determined at the first term of such court that shall be held fifteen days after the official counting of the votes, and service of notice of [599]*599contest, unless the same shall he continued by consent, or for good cause shown.” It stands conceded that the trial in the case at bar was not had at such first term, but at the next term thereafter; that the cause was not continued by consent, and that the record shows no other cause for its continuance, except a rule of court under which all causes not otherwise disposed of are continued to the next succeeding term.

This section as to time of trial is merely directory, like sections 2042, 2122, and other sections of the code relating to the time of trial of certain causes. The ability of the court'to dispose of certain causes at the return term is necessarily dependent upon the state of its docket. Where a cause is continued, and nothing to the contrary is shown in the record, it must be presumed that it was continued for good cause shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Bell.
69 S.W.2d 320 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
State ex rel. Nolte v. McQuillin
151 S.W. 444 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Mo. App. 598, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraleman-v-sippel-moctapp-1894.