appeal or writ error in Missouri

1919Busch v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56 ; State ex rel. w.

1891Busch v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56 , yet, Judge Bkace quotes with approval the language of Chief Justice Waite, in Leonard v. Ozark Land Co., lio U. S. 465: “That neither an injunction nor a decree dissolving an injunction is reversed or nullified by an appeal or writ of error, before the cause is heard in this court,” and thus casts some doubt on the position assumed by this court in Lewis v. Leahey, supra. The Kansas City Court of Appeals in Teasdale v. Jones, 40 Mo. App. 243 , holding the intimation made by the supreme court in State ex rel.

1931It is well settled, however, that a hearing on habeas corpus cannot be allowed to take the place of an appeal or writ of error. [Buckley v. Hall, 215 Mo. 93 ; Copenhaver v. Stewart, 118 Mo. 377 .] The correctness of the proceedings in the justice court is not reviewable on habeas corpus, except as to such matters going to the jurisdiction, i. e., the power of the justice, to render the judgment under and pursuant to which the prisoner is held. [Sec. 1459, R.

1920It is well settled that “the writ of habeas corpus cannot be substituted to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error.” [Ex parte Buckley, 215 Mo. 93 , l. c. 100.] All these questions then concerning the faith and credit to be given the Kansas proceedings, as well as questions of comity and questions as to the status of the child and its welfare, were questions upon which the Juvenile Court of Jackson County, Missouri, had jurisdiction to pass, and its action thereon, if merely erroneous, should be corrected by an appeal, as the Act provides (Laws 1911, p. 185, sec. 20), and not by this

1925Our Supreme Court has discussed this question most fully in the cases of Norton v. Reed, 281 Mo. 482 , 221 S. W. 6 , and Scott v. Rees, 300 Mo. 123 , 253 S. W. 998 , and has clearly demonstrated therein that the action or order of a trial court on a motion to vacate a judgment, whether for irregularity on the face of or dehors the record, is the same, and in each case is a final judgment from which an appeal or writ of error will lie.

1925Our Supreme Court has discussed this question most fully in the cases of Norton v. Reed, 281 Mo. 482 , 221 S. W. 6 , and Scott v. Rees, 300 Mo. 123 , 253 S. W. 998 , and has clearly demonstrated therein that the action or order of a trial court on a motion to vacate a judgment, whether for irregularity on the face of or dehors the record, is the same, and in each case is a final judgment from which an appeal or writ of error will lie.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1924The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hum, (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Sohreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Neb. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. and Mar. 143.” [See, also, Pittsburgh Ry.

1904The following cases fully support that view: Creighton v. Keith, 50 Neb. 810 ; Cloud v. Wiley, 29 Ark. 80 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 Ill. 589 ; People ex rel. v. Reckert, 159 Ill. 496 ; Bank v. Bank, 73 Hun (N. Y.) 78; Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386 ; Burton v. Burton, 28 Ind. 342 ; Scheible v. Slagle, 89 Ind. 328 ; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 ; Young v. Brehe, 19 Nev. 379 ; Bank v. Calvit, 3 Smed. & Mar. 143.

1904In Rogers v. Gosnell, 51 Mo. 466 , where a nonsuit was’taken with leave, a judgment to the effect “that defendant go hence and recover Ms costs, etc,” was held, in substance, a good final judgment, since it seemed that the defendant was discharged from the action and it would be difficult to take any further steps without reversing the judgment.

1884In Boggess v. Cox, supra, Wagner, Judge, said:: “ When-a non-suit is taken, in order to justify an appeal or writ of error, the judgment should be formally set-out ; that it is by the court, therefore, considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, and that the defendant go thereof without day and recover of the plaintiff his costs,” etc. In Rogers v. Gossnell, 51 Mo. 466, this was held to be a good judgment, “that-defendant go hence, and that he recover his costs.” A judgment will be held sufficient when it appears to have-been intended by some competent tribunal as the

1904In Sweet v. Jeffries, 48 Mo. 279 , the plaintiffs at the trial offered a deed in evidence which was excluded, and, thereupon, they took a nonsuit with leave to set aside; and that motion being overruled, they excepted and judgment was given against them for costs, which was the only judgment given in the cause; and, in the course of the opinion disposing of the appeal, it was said that “where a non-suit is taken in order to justify an appeal or writ of error, the judgment should be formally set out in this wise: ‘that it is by the court therefore considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take

1887Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278 ; Crockett v. Lewis, 66 Mo. 671 ; Moran v. Plankington, 58 Mo. 243 ; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 244 ; Evans v. Russell, 61 Mo. 37 ; see, also, Schmidt v. Halle, 15 Mo. App. 36, 38 ; Bobb v. Graham, 15 Mo. App. 289, 295 ; Flesh v. Christopher 9 Mo. App. 573 ; s. c., 11 Mo. App. 483, 488 .

1904In Sweet v. Jeffries, 48 Mo. 279 , the plaintiffs at the trial offered a deed in evidence which was excluded, and, thereupon, they took a nonsuit with leave to set aside; and that motion being overruled, they excepted and judgment was given against them for costs, which was the only judgment given in the cause; and, in the course of the opinion disposing of the appeal, it was said that “where a non-suit is taken in order to justify an appeal or writ of error, the judgment should be formally set out in this wise: ‘that it is by the court therefore considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take

1887Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278 ; Crockett v. Lewis, 66 Mo. 671 ; Moran v. Plankington, 58 Mo. 243 ; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 244 ; Evans v. Russell, 61 Mo. 37 ; see, also, Schmidt v. Halle, 15 Mo. App. 36, 38 ; Bobb v. Graham, 15 Mo. App. 289, 295 ; Flesh v. Christopher 9 Mo. App. 573 ; s. c., 11 Mo. App. 483, 488 .

1900In the next case, State v. Carr, 142 Mo. 607 , it was held that the State is not entitled to an appeal or writ of error on the quashing of an information, and this case, like the former, turned upon the construction of sections of the statute other than those now under consideration, and is not in point.

1900State v. Clipper, 142 Mo. 474 ; State v. Carr, 142 Mo. 607 ; State v. Cornelius, 143 Mo. 179 .

1900The same may be said of the third case, State v. Cornelius, 143 Mo. 179 .

1900State v. Clipper, 142 Mo. 474 ; State v. Carr, 142 Mo. 607 ; State v. Cornelius, 143 Mo. 179 .

1887Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278 ; Crockett v. Lewis, 66 Mo. 671 ; Moran v. Plankington, 58 Mo. 243 ; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 244 ; Evans v. Russell, 61 Mo. 37 ; see, also, Schmidt v. Halle, 15 Mo. App. 36, 38 ; Bobb v. Graham, 15 Mo. App. 289, 295 ; Flesh v. Christopher 9 Mo. App. 573 ; s. c., 11 Mo. App. 483, 488 .

1884In Boggess v. Cox, supra, Wagner, Judge, said:: “ When-a non-suit is taken, in order to justify an appeal or writ of error, the judgment should be formally set-out ; that it is by the court, therefore, considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, and that the defendant go thereof without day and recover of the plaintiff his costs,” etc. In Rogers v. Gossnell, 51 Mo. 466, this was held to be a good judgment, “that-defendant go hence, and that he recover his costs.” A judgment will be held sufficient when it appears to have-been intended by some competent tribunal as the

2008S.D.2007) (following Chastain, 968 S.W.2d 232 ).

1967Louis Union Trust Co. v. Neaf, supra, 139 S.W.2d 958 , the Supreme Court stated: “The chief purpose of a writ of ‘certio-rari’ is to give relief to injured party where an inferior tribunal had no jurisdiction, or, having jurisdiction, abused it or acted in excess thereof and the writ cannot be made to serve purpose of an appeal or writ of error”.

1958This ruling also applies to motions filed under section 1552 and to motions which are in the nature of writs of error coram nobis.” (See authorities cited.) This court held in In re Jackson’s Will, Mo.App., 291 S.W.2d 214, 220 , as follows: “* * * And ft is true that rulings on motions to vacate for irregularity, both patent on the face of the record and in the nature of coram nobis, have sometimes been designated ‘ “special order after final judgment” ’; yet a motion to vacate makes a direct attack upon the judgment and is an independent proceeding, instituted by-motion instead of a petition.

1957Leake v. Harris (in banc), 334 Mo. 713 , 67 S.W.2d 981, 982 .

1957Leake v. Harris (in banc), 334 Mo. 713 , 67 S.W.2d 981, 982 .

1943Our own statute, Section 1227, Revised Statutes 1939, is as follows: “No exceptions shall be taken in an appeal or writ of error to any proceedings in the circuit court, except such as shall have been expressly decided by such court. ’ ’ Tidwell v. Waldrup, 151 S. W. (2d) 1092 , and McClure v. Ennis Real Estate & Investment Co., 19 S. W. (2d) 531 , Missouri cases also, support the general rule.

1940Case v. Seehorn, 283 Mo. 508 , 223 S. W. 664 .] In such eases no question of fact being involved, we have held that an appeal or writ of error would not furnish an adequate remedy. [State ex rel.

1940Case v. Seehorn, 283 Mo. 508 , 223 S. W. 664 .] In such eases no question of fact being involved, we have held that an appeal or writ of error would not furnish an adequate remedy. [State ex rel.