Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
This was an action in the nature of a creditors' bill by Dorsey A. Jamison, as administrator of Charles L. Bobb, deceased, and John H. Bobb, against Henry C. Bagot, John C. Letcher, Charles Bobb, and Martha E. Bobb, his wife, brought in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo. That court rendered a decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appealed therefrom to the supreme court of the state of Missouri, which at that time consisted of five judges, any three of whom constituted a quorum. An amendment to the constitution of the state, subsequently adopted, provided, among other things, as follows:
Laws Mo. 1889, p. 322.
All provisions of the constitution of the state and all laws thereof not consistent with the amendment were declared rescinded upon its adoption.
In accordance with the amendment, the supreme court became thereafter composed of seven members (two being added as provided), divided into divisions 1 and 2.
This cause, with others, was assigned to and heard by division No. 2, and the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. Jamison v. Bagot, 16 S. W. 697, 106 Mo. 240. After said division No. 2 had announced its judgment, a federal question was for the first time raised in the case, by a motion made by defendant Martha E. Bobb for a rehearing, on the ground, besides others, that the decision of division No. 2 denied to her the equal protection of the laws, and deprived her of her property without due process of law, in contravention of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States; and at the same time a motion was made by the same defendant to transfer the cause to the full court, on the ground, besides others, that federal questions were involved. These motions were denied, and defendants brought error. The defendants in error moved in this court to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment.
T. J. Rowe, for the motion. [155 U.S. 416, 417] Michael Kinealy, opposed.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.
The writ of error is dismissed, on the authority of Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377 , 14 Sup. Ct. 570. and cases cited.
Writ of error dismissed.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 155 U.S. 416
Docket No: No. 267
Decided: December 17, 1894
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)