members bar in Missouri

1925At one time, in 1873, the whole matter was left to the discretion of the judge, but subsequently the law, as it now stands, is quite imperative, and requires the election of a special judge.’ In State v. Shipman, 93 Mo. 147 , in *9 treating Sections 1877 and 1878, Revised Statutes 1879, it was ruled that ‘when the affidavits and application made and filed by the defendant conform to the requirements of said sections of the statute, it becomes the duty of the presiding judge to hear such application, and immediately thereafter, by an order of record, to empower the members of the bar present, t

1905At one time, in 1873, the whole matter was left to the discretion of the judge, but subsequently the law, as it now stands, is quite imperative, and requires the election of a special judge." In State v. Shipman, 93 Mo. 147 , in treating sections 1877 and 1878, Revised Statutes 1879, it was ruled that “when the affidavits and application made and filed by the defendant conform to the requirements of said sections of the statute, it becomes the duty of the presiding judge to hear such application, and immediately thereafter, by an order of record, to empower the members of the bar present, to t

1994Id. at 755; Weiner, 530 S.W.2d at 224 .

1994While I am sympathetic with the great demands on the time of counsel, too often we have been lenient with the rules either because of our deference to the members of the bar or to the rights of the parties so that their important interests may be determined. * * * We no longer. can afford the luxury of doing the work of an advocate on appeal [Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App.1972) ], and of necessity must make closer examination of briefs and, where deficient, simply dismiss the appeal and let the consequences fall where they may.

1987In its search for the “simplest and most clear, concise and direct method for adopting a comprehensive system of comparative fault” Id. the court adopted the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA) Sections 1-6,12 U.L.A.Supp. 35-45 (1983).

1975The matter is well put in In re Kimball, 40 A.D.2d 252 , 339 N.Y.S.2d 302, 305 (1973), reversed on other grounds, 33 N.Y.2d 586 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 453 , 301 N.E.2d 436 (1973), as follows: "We believe that we are not bound to give full faith and credit to the Florida judgment of disbarment in the constitutional sense . . .

1975The matter is well put in In re Kimball, 40 A.D.2d 252 , 339 N.Y.S.2d 302, 305 (1973), reversed on other grounds, 33 N.Y.2d 586 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 453 , 301 N.E.2d 436 (1973), as follows: "We believe that we are not bound to give full faith and credit to the Florida judgment of disbarment in the constitutional sense . . .

1955Elizabeth, Mo., 266 S.W.2d 647 , brought the necessity of complying with said rules to the attention of the members of the bar.

1939Nor is the propriety of this conclusion in anywise affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in In re Fenn, 341 Mo. 684 , 108 S. W. (2d) 369 (a contempt proceeding growing out of his institution of such action), inasmuch as the court in that case expressly withheld its decision on the merits because of the absence from the record of controlling facts for a decision.

1939Nor is the propriety of this conclusion in anywise affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in In re Fenn, 341 Mo. 684 , 108 S. W. (2d) 369 (a contempt proceeding growing out of his institution of such action), inasmuch as the court in that case expressly withheld its decision on the merits because of the absence from the record of controlling facts for a decision.

1910The experience of the Supreme Court and of all appellate courts is graphically expressed by Justice Lamm in Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. loc. cit. 137, 103 S. W. 542 : “A bill of exceptions is, what its very name imports, a receptacle for exceptions and is not a fit legal vessel. to hold matter belonging to the record proper; hence a recital in such bill cannot be held evidence of such matter, secundum artem. . . .

1908Millett v. Fields, 37 Mo. App. 83 .] The practice obtains and it is the common course of conduct on the part of courts and the members of the bar to hold frequent conferences to the end that the bills of exceptions shall be settled and signed by the trial judge without resorting to the more extraordinary proceeding- pointed out for obtaining a bystanders’ bill.

1902State v. Downs, 164 Mo. 471 .

1900This case has been here before ( 140 Mo. 89 ), and is known among the members of the bar of this State, as the “suction case.” It is an action for $5,000 damages for the death of James Graney, the minor son of plaintiffs, alleged to have been caused by his being “drawn or sucked into and under defendant’s train by the force and velocity of said train which was moving at a reckless rate of speed,” etc. The petition charges that, on the eighteenth day of January, 1891, there were in force three valid ordinances in the city of St.

1878And they were brought into general use in consequence of the litigation which terminated in the decision of this court in Kennedy’s Admr. v. Hammond and Hall, 16 Mo. 341 .

1870And I doubt whether it is usual for the members of the bar to take the precaution to inquire, when they are thus retained, whether there has been a formal resolution of the board of directors authorizing their retainer in the case.” Mumford v. Hawkins, president of the Exchange Bank, 5 Denio, 355 , was an action by the plaintiff for a bill of fees in a suit instituted by defendant’s bank, and the principal defense was that the action was unauthorized.