¶1 (concurring). — I concur fully in all of this opinion, except that I must say that a fair inference would be that the temporary injunction was issued both without notice and without bond. This because it appears that the relator in the injunction was following strictly the Federal statute. It would be but natural to proceed without bond, as is provided in that statute. Relator in this case should have made this fact clear, but the matter is pending before a seasoned jurist, and if under the ruling in this case he knows his judgment to be void, as it would be if no bond was filed before the restraining order, he will not further attempt to punish for contempt on a void judgment. Under our law, it being the governing law, in the course of procedure and practice, the giving of a bond is a condition *447 precedent to jurisdiction. With these additional views, I concur.
304 Mo. 428
263 S.W 988
Ex Parte Gounis
Decided July 3, 1924
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1924-07-03
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1924-07-03
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson (1995), Miller v. Mun. Court of L. A. (1943)
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
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 →