Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Mo. 359

Shotwell v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 15, 1866

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1866-02-15

<p>Practice — Supreme Court. — -Case stricken from the docket, the bill of exceptions not appearing from the transcript to have been signed by the judge, nor any appeal or writ of error taken.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1876

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holmes, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It appears that the plaintiff made a motion in the Ray county Circuit Court for permission to practise in that court as an attorney-at-law without having taken the oath of loyalty, as required by the constitution of this State. The motion being granted, the Circuit Attorney for the State excepted, and tendered a bill of exceptions, which docs not appear by this transcript to have been allowed and signed by the judge of the court below. The point which appears to have been raised, has already been decided in this court in the cases of the State v. Garesché, and the State v. Cum*360mings (October term, 1865, at St. Louis). But this one does not come hero in such a shape that we can take any notice of the case. There is properly no bill of exceptions, nor any appeal or writ of error. No attorney appears for either party. The case must be stricken off the docket.

J udge Wagner concurs; J udge Lovelace absent.
/37/mo/359 · .json · Public domain