State v. Thompson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Thompson

30 Mo. App. 503, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 299

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 Mo. App. 503 (State v. Thompson) 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

State v. Thompson, 30 Mo. App. 503, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Philips, P. J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted on several counts, for selling intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and keeping open his grocery-store and tippling-house, and transacting business on Sunday. From this judgment he appealed, and gave a supersedeas bond. Afterwards he sued out a writ of error from the clerk’s office of this court, in vacation, and brought the .case here on writ of error. It is on this record the cause has been submitted. The record shows the fact of taking said appeal. That appeal has never been disposed of, and is yet pending. A party is not entitled to pursue both remedies, of appeal and writ of error, simultaneously. He was not entitled to his writ of error, at least until the appeal was dismissed. For that appeal is yet pending, and the supersedeas is in force. Chinn v. Davis, 21 Mo. App. 363.

The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.

All concur.

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

Philips, P. J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted on several counts, for selling intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and keeping open his grocery-store and tippling-house, and transacting business on Sunday. From this judgment he appealed, and gave a supersedeas bond. Afterwards he sued out a writ of error from the clerk’s office of this court, in vacation, and brought the .case here on writ of error. It is on this record the cause has been submitted. The record shows the fact of taking said appeal. That appeal has never been disposed of, and is yet pending. A party is not entitled to pursue both remedies, of appeal and writ of error, simultaneously. He was not entitled to his writ of error, at least until the appeal was dismissed. For that appeal is yet pending, and the supersedeas is in force. Chinn v. Davis, 21 Mo. App. 363.

The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Mo. App. 503, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-moctapp-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack