State ex rel. Hopkins v. County Court

64 Mo. 170
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 64 Mo. 170 (State ex rel. Hopkins v. County Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Hopkins v. County Court, 64 Mo. 170 (Mo. 1876).

Opinion

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the county court of Cooper county to pay the interest coupons due July 1, 1873, on certain township bonds issued to the Tebo and Neosho railroad company by said court on behalf of the township of Boonville. In conformity with our long established custom, when the application was first made we denied the writ; but at the earnest solicitation of counsel, one of whom was Chief Justice of this court when said denial occurred, we temporarily vacated the order denying the writ, to give opportunity to the present counsel to be heard in connection with others in cases set down for re-argument, involving the validity of bonds of the character before mentioned; stating, however, that the only effect of the vacation of the order would be to place the petitioner in the same attitude as when the application was first made.

The reasons which gave origin to the custom above adverted to, were these :

That parties in ordinary cases were not compelled to come to this court in search of such extraordinary remedies ; that the trial courts were open to them ; that suitors who have by appeal or writ of error brought up their causes to this court and had them docketed, were of right entitled to precedence, whereof they should not be deprived in order to give place to those whose causes of action have but recently accrued, and who, if their application for these unusual writs and remedies were successful, would thereby gain an advantage and priority in point of time on the docket, which they could never hope to attain by the usual course of procedure.

These considerations have, in the crowded state of our docket, hitherto’ prevailed with us, and will continue to do so, until a case of far more than ordinary magnitude and importance, induces a departure from our general rule.

Without any examination, therefore, into the merits of this application we shall deny the writ.

Judge Napton absent; the other judges concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Dietz v. Carter
319 S.W.2d 56 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1958)
Tebbetts v. Rickart
158 S.W. 843 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
State ex rel. Sager v. Corley
67 S.W. 571 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
People ex rel. Kocourek v. City of Chicago & Schlesinger & Meyer
193 Ill. 507 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
People ex rel. Dickinson v. Board of Trade
62 N.E. 196 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
State ex rel. Parker-Washington Co. v. Jones
44 S.W. 224 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State ex rel. Walbridge v. Valliant
27 S.W. 379 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
State ex rel. Brennan v. Walbridge
22 S.W. 893 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
State ex rel. Boeckler v. Thayer
10 Mo. App. 540 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Ford v. French
72 Mo. 250 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Mo. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hopkins-v-county-court-mo-1876.