State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill

39 S.W. 276, 137 Mo. 681, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 75
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided March 2, 1897·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM.

Per Curiam.

The application of the attorney-general for a preliminary rule in prohibition against Judge Gill, to prevent his taking further proceedings on a writ of habeas corpus issued by him on the application of Mr. Lowe, is denied.

Without going into the merits of the question whether or not Mr. Lowe is in contempt, it is the opinion of the judges present that, as the application here does not show that the alleged want of jurisdiction (on which the application for prohibition is founded) appears in the record or proceedings before Judge Gill, the objection of want of jurisdiction on his part should, at least, be first presented to Judge Gill upon a showing of said facts.

Shepard Barclay, C. J., and G. B. Macearlane, W. M. Robinson, Theo. Brace, and G. D. Burgess, JJ.

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

State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill, 39 S.W. 276, 137 Mo. 681, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 75 (Mo. 1897).

39 S.W. 276 (State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Conran v. Duncan
63 S.W.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Buffum v. Stokes
133 So. 75 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Mudd v. Wehmeyer
19 S.W.2d 891 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1929)
Koch v. Norton
261 S.W. 125 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1924)
State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin
171 S.W. 72 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Coffman v. Saline Valley Railroad
167 S.W. 1053 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)