Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Mo. 23

Hempstead v. Darby

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 15, 1828

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1828-05-15

<p>A notice on the day of the trial of a cause, before a Justice of the Peace, by one of the parties in the trial, that he intended at a subsequent day to take an appeal_ held, not to be a sufficient notice of sueh appeal. (Note a.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1828-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1952

7 state decisions

3018281830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tompkins, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2Darby sued Hempstead before a Justice of the Peace, and had a judgment. On the day of trial Hempstead gave notice of an appeal. The day of trial was on the 19th day of January, 3828, and on the 26th day of the same month he asked an appeal, which was granted and bond given on the same day.

¶3The Circuit Court dismissed the cause from the docket for want of notice. The act of 21st of February, 1825, provides that in all cases of an appeal, not prayed for on the day of trial, the party appealing shall notify, in writing, the opposite party ox his agent, &c. The defendant could not properly call himself the party appealing until his appeal was prayed for and perhaps granted. The notice then given on the day of trial before the Justice, of an intention to take an appeal seven days after the trial, does not seem to satisfy the law. Had he taken his appeal on the day of trial there would have been no need of notice 5 but as it was not taken on that day, it ought to have been given in writing. This Court will not, where a legal notice has not been given, presume such notice from the fact of the party, to whom the notice ought to have been given, coming into Court and moving to dismiss the cause for want of notice. Had Darby proceeded in his cause by pleading to the merits, or by doing any other act to admit notice, the case would have been different. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

¶4(a.) See Cave & Morris v. Hall, adm’r, 5 Mo. R., 61.

/2/mo/23 · .json · Public domain