Roberts v. Modern Woodmen of America

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roberts v. Modern Woodmen of America

123 S.W. 60, 146 Mo. App. 70, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 429

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 30, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.W. 60 (Roberts v. Modern Woodmen of America) 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

Roberts v. Modern Woodmen of America, 123 S.W. 60, 146 Mo. App. 70, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

REYNOLDS, P. J.

On Motion to Tax Costs for Printing Abstract: In this case judgment was entered in this court at the October term, 1908, reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause. Subsequently, and at the October term, 1909, of this court, a motion was filed to tax the costs of printing the abstract against respondent and at that term costs in the amount of eighty-five dollars were allowed and taxed. This was error. Our attention was not called to the fact that the motion to allow and tax these costs was made long after,the close of the term at which the cause was determined in this court. We were without jurisdiction of the cause when we made the order, and that order is hereby set aside and the motion for allowance and taxation of costs of printing the abstract is overruled. [See Wilson & Co. v. Stark, 47 Mo. App. 116; Berberet v. Berberet, 136 Mo. 671.]

All. concur.

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

REYNOLDS, P. J.

On Motion to Tax Costs for Printing Abstract: In this case judgment was entered in this court at the October term, 1908, reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause. Subsequently, and at the October term, 1909, of this court, a motion was filed to tax the costs of printing the abstract against respondent and at that term costs in the amount of eighty-five dollars were allowed and taxed. This was error. Our attention was not called to the fact that the motion to allow and tax these costs was made long after,the close of the term at which the cause was determined in this court. We were without jurisdiction of the cause when we made the order, and that order is hereby set aside and the motion for allowance and taxation of costs of printing the abstract is overruled. [See Wilson & Co. v. Stark, 47 Mo. App. 116; Berberet v. Berberet, 136 Mo. 671.]

All. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.W. 60, 146 Mo. App. 70, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-modern-woodmen-of-america-moctapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack