Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Mo. 123

Walker v. Stoddard

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1860-10-15

<p>1. A judge would not be required by the supreme court to sign as a bill of exceptions a document containing neither the testimony nor the motions made and overruled, but simply calling for their insertion therein.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1921

10 state decisions

401860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Scott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is a petition to compel the judge of the circuit court of Stoddard county [to sign a bill of exceptions]. Without inquiring at this time in relation to the power of this court over the subject of the petition, it will be sufficient to observe that annexed to the petition for a mandamus is a copy of the bill of exceptions, which the judge was required to sign. The signing of such an instrument would avail the party nothing. Such a bill of exceptions would avail in this court no more than a piece of blank paper. Instead of setting out the evidence to be preserved in the bill of exceptions, there is this memorandum: “Here insert testimony.” Instead of setting out the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, there is the following note: “ Here insert motion.” It is obvious that nothing can be gained by signing such a bill of exceptions, as it is nothing more than a skeleton. Motion for a mandamus overruled.,

The other judges concur.
/31/mo/123 · .json · Public domain