United States v. Gamble & Bates

10 Mo. 457
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1847
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 10 Mo. 457 (United States v. Gamble & Bates) 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
United States v. Gamble & Bates, 10 Mo. 457 (Mo. 1847).

Opinion

Scott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Marshall Holliday was convicted of a crime against the United States and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay a fine. His trial and conviction took place in the Courts of the United States in Louisiana. Gamble & Bates, residing in this State, had in their hands moneys belonging to Holliday. A suit, by attachment, was commenced by the U. States against Holliday in the St. Louis Circuit Court, for the purpose of recovering the fine imposed by the court in Louisiana. Gamble & Bates being summoned as garnishees, on their motion,the suit was dismissed, and the United States brings the cause to this court. No bill of exceptions was filed in the cause.

It is an invariable presumption of this court that the proceedings of the inferior courts are correct, unless the contrary appears. He who seeks to reverse them must put his finger upon the error committed by them. Although a motion is set out by a clerk in the record, that does not make it a part of it. A clerk cannot make any thing a record which he pleases to write in the order book or see fit to dopy into a record.— A motion is »no part of the record, and it can only be made so by incorporating it into a bill of exceptions. This court, then, cannot notice the motion in this cause, as it was not preserved in a bill of exceptions. The presumption, then, must prevail that the judgmént of the court below is correct. The other Judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

McKinney v. Northcutt
89 S.W. 351 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Smith v. Smith
86 S.W. 586 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Keuthan v. St. Louis Trust Co.
73 S.W. 334 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
State v. Brennan
65 S.W. 325 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
Lloyd v. Thurman
69 Mo. App. 145 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Monroe City Bank v. Finks
40 Mo. App. 367 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Swaggard v. Hancock
25 Mo. App. 596 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Jones v. Christian
24 Mo. App. 540 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Pendergast v. Hodge
21 Mo. App. 138 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Merchants' Insurance v. Hill
12 Mo. App. 148 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1882)
Blount v. Zink
55 Mo. 455 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Brown v. Foote
55 Mo. 178 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Miller v. Brown
47 Mo. 504 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1871)
Woods, Christy & Co. v. Mosier
22 Mo. 335 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Mo. 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gamble-bates-mo-1847.