Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 492
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 492.410 (2026)

Evidence preserved in bill of exceptions may be used, how

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  492.410.  Evidence preserved in bill of exceptions may be used, how. — Whenever any competent evidence shall have been preserved in any bill of exceptions in a cause, the same may be thereafter used in the same manner and with like effect as if such testimony had been preserved in a deposition in said cause, but the party against whom such testimony of any witness may be used shall be permitted to prove any matters contradictory thereof as though such witness were present and testifying in person.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1878)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 1714; 1919 § 5401; 1909 § 6345

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1956–1982 · leading case: Murphy v. State, 636 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murphy v. State, 636 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “410 but we think much of the discussion in Ely-Walker is relevant to the problem before us.”
Bean v. Riddle, 423 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 3× “The transcript of Adams’ testimony could have been ‘used in the same manner and with like effect as if such testimony had been preserved in a deposition in said cause,’ Section 492.410 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and was equally available to both parties.”
Lix v. Gastian, 287 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 3× “During his argument to the jury counsel for defendant commented on the absence of Wayne Adams, plaintiff’s stepson, and argued that plaintiff did not introduce in evidence the transcript of Adams’ previous testimony for the reason that it would have shown Adams to be “guilty of…”
Sebree v. Rosen, 374 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. 1964). · cites it 2× “There is no stipulation to that effect and there was no effort made to comply with § 492.410, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., which provides that competent evidence which has been preserved in a transcript of a record may thereafter be used in the same manner and like effect as if such…”
Ridenour v. Duncan, 291 S.W.2d 900 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 3× “Section 492.410 RSMo 1949, V.A. M.S., authorizes the use of evidence preserved in a bill of exceptions as if preserved in a deposition.”
Kagan v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 360 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 3× “Section 1, Paragraph 2, subsection (6) thereof provides for the reading of depositions, “If the witness is absent without the consent, connivance or collusion of the *269 party requiring his testimony and the party, in the exercise of due diligence, has been unable to procure…”
Eickmann v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 323 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. 1959). “§ 492.410; Sculley v. Rolwing, Mo.App., 88 S.”
Midwest Library Serv., Inc. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 566 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “Under § 492.410, R.S.Mo.1949, in effect at the time, the transcript could have been “used in the same manner and with like effect as if such testimony had been preserved in a deposition in said cause.”
State v. Le Beau, 306 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. 1957). “The trial court in considering the application reviewed the history of the case as shown by the record and pointed out that the transcript of the testimony of the Pal-mers at the prior trial of the cause could be used and introduced in evidence, if the motion for continuance was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.