There are no known copyright restrictions on this item. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. Washington University Libraries does not assert copyright in reproduction scans of public domain materials made openly available on its websites. For more information on policies and procedures governing the use of materials, contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Take notice that on monday next
the thirteenth of this month, between the
hours of eight oclock in the morning and
six in the afternoon of that day, at the office
of the clerk of the
to be read in
of controversy now depending, on motion, in
the
Jessee G. Lundell and the said President
Directors and Company of the Bank of Mis
of the said president directors of company.
J. G.
vs = Copy
Bk:
Notice to take depos=
=tions.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court
of the
Lindel
vs
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Depositions of Witnesses produced sworn and examined on the
Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight hundred and twenty five
o Clock in the forenoon and
Clerk of the
conformity with a notice to take the depositions of Witnesses in a certain cause now
depending in the Circuit Court of the
tiff and the President directors and Company of the
the part of said Plaintiff -
on the
sented to
capacity at the Banking house of the
where about noon of that day for payment. Three Twenty dollar notes, Fifty Six
Ten dollar notes and Thirty Six-five dollar Noted, which are particularly described
in a Notice Served by
Honpheel one of the Directors of the
year 1821
4th October 1821 - which notes were presented to be filed in the Clerks office of the
of St. Louis County on the 4th October 1821 and were as this deponent believes
filed by the Clerk of said Court as may be seen by the memorandom written above his
name on each of said
by said
deposith and saith, that
the
said Court on the 4th Oct. 1821 by
for the sum of $800 with the penalty
was rendered
I endorsed upon each note the date of filing
the same and subscribed my name to each
I have this day examined thirty six five
fifty six Ten and three twenty dollar notes
of the
dorsed upon each the words “filed
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
After the
by the
It was rendered were returned to
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Whereas
in the year one thousand Eight hundred and twenty two on the first day
of November in the year aforesaid recovered against the President
Directors and Company of the
and ten dollars the amount of the notes described in the notice upon
motion for Judgement against the said President Director and Company
of the
month on the amount appearing to be due on the face of each and every
of said notes respectively from the
Hundred and twenty two
costs and charges by him about his wit in that behalf expended
whereof the said President Directors and Company of the
are convict as appears to us of Record and now on behalf of the said
given yet Execution still remains to be made of the aforesaid Debt penalty
and costs wherefore the said
a proper remedy in this behalf and we being willing that what is
right in this behalf should be done command you that by good and
lawful men of your county you make known unto the said President
Directors and Company of the
before the Judge of our said
held at the
fourth Monday of November next then and there to shew cause if any
they have or know of any thing to say why the said
not have his Execution against them according to the force form and
Effect of the former recovery if it shall
and have you then there this writ and the names of those by whom
you
Judgement & revived Book 5 page 483
motion & leave to take out
in this State same book page 484
Executed this writ on Thomas F
1829. He
of the
November 6. 1829 He
all done in the
two good & lawfull men by whom the
to Answers
vs
The President Director & Company
of the
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The said Plaintiff
being duly
Judgments of this, Court against the
said defendants, on one of which he has issued
an execution which he believes
any
any property of the said defendants in the
made, and believes there is no remembered
property. He further says he has reason to
believe that there is property of the defendants
in other counties of the State, which might
he sibjected in whole or in part to the
payment of the debts one this affiant
J. G. Lindell
affidavit
Bk: if
application for you to
other counties
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
In virtue of the writ of
issued in the above named Cause, and there being no
sufficient lands and tenements, goods & chattels of the
defendants found in the County, whereof to levy the
amount due on said writ, the Sheriff, according to the
form of the statute in that behalf made has Summoned
as garnishee, the following named, debtors of the said
defendants, that is to say; Thomas H. Benton,
And thereupon, the said plaintiff
alleges that each & every one of the said garnishee is
and at the time they were respectively summoned as
garnishee in this cause, was a debtor of the said
defendants in execution, in this, to wit - that at the
said time, each and every one of them was, & still is
indebted to the defendants in a large sum of money,
to wit, fifteen thousand dollars, for money
advanced by the said defendants to the said garnish-
ee respectively, at their respective requests, and then,
(and still) in arrear and unpaid. - And also in
this, that at this said time, each of the said garnish-
ee was, & still is, indebted to the said defendants in
a large sum of money to wit, ten thousand dollars,
upon and in virtue of promissory notes of them, the
said garnishee, by them before that time respectively
made. - And also in this, that at the said time,
each and every one of the said garnishee was, and
sum of money to wit, Eight thousand dollars, upon
and in virtue of judgments of the
St Louis County, rendered against them respectively, in
favor of the said defendants, which still remain of
record in the said court
And the said plaintiff exhibits the
following interrogatories to be answered by every one of
the said garnishee according to law, viz:
1. Are you not & even you not, at the time you were
summoned as garnishee in this case, a debtor of the
above named defendants - and if so, to what amount,
and when & in what manner did the debt accrue?
2. Are you not & were you not at the time you were summoned as garni-
shes in this case indebted to the said dependants, for
money lent to you by them, and never repaid - if so, in
what amount, when was the loan made, by what in-
struments of writing (if any) evidenced & what has be-
come of such instruments?
3. At the time you were summoned as
you not, and are you not now, indebted to the said
defendants, upon and in virtue of certain promissory
such notes, and when did they respectively fall due, and
what has become of them?
4. At the time you were Summoned as garnishee, were
you not and are you not now, indebted to the said
defendants upon & in virtue of a judgment or judg-
ments of the Circuit Court of the
so, when was the judgment rendered, for what amount,
and how much, if any of it, has been paid?
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
5. At the time the President, Directors & Company of the
banking, were you not indebted to them, if so, in
what sum? - have you paid any part thereof, if so,
how much have you paid, when did you pay it, - did
you pay in money or in what commodity & how did
you pay? — did you settle or compromise said debt or
any part thereof, if so, how much thereof, & in what
manner did you settle or compromise the same?
vs
The President &c of the
Filed Decr 9 1831
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
And the said
summoned as garnishee on the execution in this case, in reply
to the allegations & interrogatories filed therein, answers as
follows.
1 To the first interrogatory he says that at the time when
he was summoned as garnishee as aforesaid, he was not
indebted, nor has he been
to said defendants.
2. To the second interrogatory he answers that at the time when
he was summoned as aforesaid, he was not indebted to said
defendants for money lent by them, nor has he been
since, nor is he now so indebted.
3. To the third interrogatory he answers, that at the time
aforesaid when he was summoned as garnishee, he was
not indebted to said defendants upon and in virtue of cer-
tain promissory notes or other
has he been since, nor is he now so indebted.
4. To the fourth interrogatory he answers that neither
at the time when he was summoned as aforesaid, nor at
any time since, was he indebted, nor is he now, to said
defendants upon and in virtue of any judgment or judgments
of the
5. To the fifth interrogatory, he answers that at the
time said President Directors & Company, ceased to
not indebted, to them in any
And for further answer to said allegations &
interrogations this respondent says that he has been
informed & changes the fact so to be, that before the
execution in above case on which he was summoned
as garnishee as aforesaid, was
dent Directors & Company of the
and were extinct as a corporation & dissolved. So
that any debt or debts (if there were any such) pre-
were not owing to there when said execution is-
sued and are not now so owing.
This respondent for further answer saith that he has
been summoned as garnishee in four other suits
instituted in the
above defendants viz; one by Arend
Robert D Dawson, one by Gilman Administrator
of Gilman & one other by the above plaintiff; & refers
to his answers in those several suits to be taken
as part of his answer in this cause.
vs.
President Directors & Com-
pany of the
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
And the said
as garnishee on the execution in this case, in answer to the alle-
gations & interrogatories filed therein, says
1 In reply to the first interrogatory, that at the time he was sum-
moned as garnishee in above case, he was not, nor hath he been
since, a debtor of said defendants in any sum, nor is he now such
debtor.
2. In reply to the record Interrogatory, he says that at the time he
was summoned as garnishee in this case he was not, nor has he
been at any time since, nor is he now indebted to said defen-
dants for money lent to him by the defendants and never repaid
nor for any other cause, nor in any way.
3. In reply to the third interrogatory he says that at the time
when he was summoned as garnishee in above case he was not,
nor hath he been since, nor is he now, indebted to said defen-
dants, upon and in virtue of any promissory note or notes.
4. To the fourth interrogatory he answers that at the time he was
summoned as garnishee in said case he was not, nor has he
been since, nor is he now, indebted to said defendants upon &
in virtue of any judgment or judgments of said
cuit Court or of any other Court.
5
when the said President Directors & Company
to
lars
said defendants were indebted to this respondent in the sum
of eleven hundred seventy five dollars eighty five cents for a de-
posit leaving the balance of two thousand eight hundred twenty
four dollars fifteen cents due by this respondent to said defen-
dants.
of four thousand dollars was given by him, & was probably
renewed several times; and the last renewed note for said
was dated April Twenty third in the year eighteen hundred and
twenty two payable at Sixty days; which note, on or about the
hundred and twenty two
of said deposits) to certain persons appointed by the defendants
notes of said Bank in circulation: which
to act thereunder and have been since, as he believes, and are still
acting thereunder; and that said trust was
deed of trust. and he says further that within less than six
months after his said note became due, he paid up the balance
due thereon in full to
interest, and his said note was thereupon delivered up to this
respondent & cancelled, and he
authorized and required, to collect said note among other se-
curities put into their hands & to settle the same, and this respon-
dent, after this lapse of time, cannot now recollect, nor has he
been able to ascertain, whether at the time referred to in said
fifth interrogatory, he was indebted to said defendants in any other
or further sum: but is positive that if he was so indebted,
he, within a
full: but how or in what manner he paid them, he has not
the least recollection.
And this respondent further says that if he
other than as aforesaid, such cause or causes of action
within five years next preceding the time of service of said
notice on this respondent in this case.
And this respondent further says that he has been informed, & there
fore charges the fact so to be, that before the fieri facias issued on
which he has been garnishee, the said President Directors & Company of the
extinct as a corporation, so that any debt or debts if any such were
or had been previously due to said defendants by this respondent, were
notice was served on this this respondent.
And this respondent further says that he has been summoned
as garnishee likewise on executions of Bejnamine Ive Gilman administrator
of
he refers as part of this his answer.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
St Louis County Ss
oath saith that above answer is true
vs
President Directors & Company
of the
Answer of
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
vs
On execution in
bert
as
And the said
says
1. That the said
was summoned as
& still is
ney, to wit, five thousand dollars, for money lent &
advanced by the said defts. to the said
quest & upon him in virtue of certin
notes by the said
said
said
ready to verify,
2. Not at the time the said debts ceased to transact
the
wit, the sum of five thousand dollars & this he is
the said
Gamble Bates Allen for
and as to the allegation
On execution
moned as garnishee.
And the said
am Clark filed in this cause to the allegations & in-
terrogations exhibited by the said
says; 1st. Not the said
when he was summoned as garnishee as aforesaid was
Indebted & still is
of money to wit, five thousand dollars for money lent
quest, & upon & in virtue of certain
by the said Clark before that time made by the said
clark & upon an account stated between them the
said clark & the said debts
2. Not at the time the said defts ceased to trans-
act the
was & still is
money, to wit, the sum of five thousand dollars
& this he is ready to verify,
said answer of the said
Gamble Bates
And as to the allegation in said answer that the
cause or causes of action in such allegation mentioned
five years next
tice on said
that the same is insufficient to
ing thereto & therefore the said
hereto
Gamble Bates & Allen
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
vs
Ref: to answer of
& Clark
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Thomas H. Benton makes oath
that he did not arrive at his home in
time allowed (as he has been
informed)
to file his answer in this case, nor until
since the commencement of the
this court; that since his arrival
he has been
make the examinations into books
& papers which his answer would
require, that the transactions are of
several years standing, & require
examinations to be made. He
prays that the judgment may be set
aside, & time allowed to file his
answer in this case & others
until
Saturday next.
Robt D Dawson
vs
Garnishee of the
on fifd
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
and Company of the bank of
Cases.
The answer of
moned as a garnishee in these cases.
This respondent protesting that he
is not bound to answer as to any indebtedness to the
bank of
moned as Garnishee in the above cases nevertheless
answereth and saith. That he was indebted to
said bank of
do business as a Bank which was about the
year 1821, for money lent to him, and secured
to be paid by promissory notes endorsed accord-
ing to the rules of the bank, that soon after said
bank ceased to do business he was informed &
believes it to be true that his debt to said Bank
was transferred to the
ment of a debt due from the bank of Mis-
souri to the said
a judgement was afterwards obtained against him
in the
ed debt for about the sum of seven thousand
dollars for the use and benefit of the
which judgement remaining unpaid, the notes on
which the same was founded as the respondent
has been informed & believes to be true were put
in suit in the
was depending and unfinished when the respon-
dent last heard from it. And this respondent
further answering saith that he was a Stock-
holder in said bank of
scribed for ten shares which were duly paid
in according to the act incorporating said bank
and also that he bought certain other shares which
according to the provisions of the Charter were duly
paid in as he was informed and believes and
and on a pledge of this Stock thus paid in, but
how much this respondent
has not been able to obtain access to the books
of the bank to ascertain it, and does not know where
said last mentioned notes are or whether they have
been assigned or transferred away
And for further answer to said interrogatories,
this respondent says that he has been informed,
and so charges the fact to be, that before the
execution in the said case in which he has
been summoned as a garnishee, was issued,
the said President, Directors & company of the
powers and privileges, and was dissolved &
became extinct as a corporation and dissol-
ved, so that any debt or debts (of there
were any such previously owing by this
respondent to said
not owing to them at the time when this
respondent was summoned as a garnishee,
at any time
This respondent further answering saith that
he does not recollect the dates of any of the
notes on which he was indebted to the
bank of
of the Statute of Limitations if any such
notes shall be
subject to be barred by that statute, in
the same manner as if he had been
by the bank of
that he was
in these cases.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
And this
saith that he was not
said bank of
at any time since for money but except
upon promissory notes
bank, or
above set forth, and that at the time
he was summoned as
cases, he was not
defendants, nor
to them,
vs
President Director
B.of
Answers of
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Louis Bompart being of law-
ful age and duly sworn on his oath saith that
he believe he was appointed Cashier of the bank
of missouri in the year 1820 that he continued
to act and discharge the duties of cashier to said
institution until some time he thinks in the month
of april in the year 1822 at which time
with the consent of the President of said bank (Thomas
F. Reddick) he resigned his office of cashier
and went up the
ment of the American
on the resignation of this affiant he under-
stood and believes that
took charge of the business of the institution
by order of the President and perhaps some
of the Directors, that said Langham as this
affiant has been informed and believes acted
only as a clerk, the bank having prior to the
resignation of affiant ceased to do business
as a banking institution and no other per-
son as this affiant believes even having
been appointed cashier thereof after the resignation of
this affiant that this affiant has never acted
in the capacity of Cashier of said Bank of
missouri since the period as above stated at
which he resigned said office that the salary
of this affiant as Cashier of the bank of
or immediately after his resignation of that office
Sworn to
this
Garmer Joo
vs Bank of
Lindell vs. Bank 2 cases
Gilmans
Affidavits filed on mo-
tions.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Ss.
on his oath saith that he was chosen one of the Directors
of the
eight hundred and twenty one and as he thinks in May of that
year to serve as such Director for the ensuing year. that
year &
that the business of said Bank which was a corporate
body known by the style of the President Directors
& Company of the
the Board of Directors & President chosen at the time
aforesaid, until some time in August of the same
year, when said Bank ceased to redeem its notes,
with specie, and soon after stopped all banking op-
erations: that said Board of Directors soon after that,
ceased to meet as a Board of Directors or to do any
acts of a corporate character. He further says that
he is positive that no other Directors or President
of said Bank, have been chosen since the year
eighteen hundred twenty one: that any such election
could not have happened without deponents Knowledge,
since that year, inasmuch as he has from that time been
always a resident of
house of said institution had been located, & where the
said President & Directors of the year eighteen hundred &
twenty one
curred, must have been held. Deponent further says that
while said Banking Institution was in operation the
President & Directors thereof purchased a
the town (now City) of St. Louis on which they erected
a Banking house, which they occupied from the time
of its erection until they ceased to do business as afore-
said, as their place of doing business in
the only place of doing their business & managing the
was fixed upon & designated: as this deponent & believes
& in fact is positive, by the President & Directors of
said Institution as the permanent location for trans-
acting the affairs of said corporation in
And he says moreover that in the year of our Lord
Eighteen hundred twenty two or twenty three, the same
Lot & Banking house was sold and as deponent has
heard & believes, upon judgment & execution against
the said President Directors & Company; and that the
same lot & building have him ever since owned &
occupied by the persons claiming under that sale; &
have never since then, been in the possession or
control of said President Directors & Company or
any of their officers or agents: that since that time
said corporation has had no place of doing business
in
there have been no meetings of any Board of Directors
of said Institution to the Knowledge or belief of this
deponent since the year of our Lord eighteen hundred
& twenty one: that
long after the failure of said Institution, and probably
in the year eighteen hundred twenty two, quit the
said Institution, went into other business & has not to
the belief of this deponent, had any connection with
said President Directors & Company Since: or been in
their employ: that there has not been any new Cash-
ier chosen in the room of said Bompart since.
Deponent further says that said Thomas F. Reddick
died about two years & a half ago, having been for
several years previous thereto a resident of the
been chosen President of said Institution since said
dred and twenty one.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
his oath saith that he was appointed one of the Directors
of the
and twenty one, he thinks in the month of May of
that year having been chosen such at the annual
meeting of the Stock holders of that year; that he continued
to act in that capacity with the other members of
said Board of Directors, of which
Thomas F.
of that year when said Bank
specie for its notes: soon after which time, said Board of Directors
acts: and there has been no meeting of any board
of Directors of said Institution since that time to his
knowledge or belief; that
affidavit of
made therein are true throughout.
Dawson vs
Rutgers vs Bank of
Affidavits filed on
motions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The
Thomas H. Benton
the judgements by default taken in the above cases
against said
1st Because the same were taken irregularly &
agreement of the plaintiffs, counsel made with
said
2nd Because the answers
of this Court to be filed within the time limited
by the court & before said judgments by
asked for or rendered
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
vs
same vs same
Reasons for setting
fault,
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Be it remembered that on the
gust in the year 1832
court in that year
summoned as a garnishee
court to set aside the
the above case aginst the said
filed his reasons therefore &
port thereof which motion reasons &
are in the words & figures following (here insert
the motion reasons for setting aside the
default & affidavit
day) which motion after appearance thereto
by plff was by the court sustained & the
tion
that this his bill of exceptions may be
sealed & made a part of the record, which is
done accordingly.
vs
Bill of exceptions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
execution in this case moves the Court to
said execution and also to set aside &
proceedings thereunder aginst him for the following
reasons & upon the affidants of
1 Because said execution is illegal irregular &
2 Beause when it issued the said defendants had
to exist as a corporate body and there was in
tence
3 Because no such proceeding can legally be had
under said execution against this garnishee as the
debtor of said defendants as has been and and
adopted in this case.
4 Because under said execution no debts of said
defendants can legally be
satisfaction of plaintiff's
Reasons of wash for
setting aside execution &
proceedings thereunder
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
on execution in this case moves the court to set aside the
judgment of revival in above case & the proceedings thereon
for then reasons.
1 Because said Judgment was rendered without any ser-
vice of the
son on whom by law it might he served to procure the
appearance of said defendants or have a judgment
against them nor were they notified on said scire facias
or made parties to it in any way nor were there two
Nihils returned.
2 Because when said judgment was entered & before
the said defendants had become & were extinct as
a corporate body, & no judgment could be entered
against them.
No 168
Novr 1831
vs.
Reasons of
for setting aside judgment
of revival &c.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The President Dirctors &
Company of the
suits move the Court to set aside the original Judgments
in said suits: also the Judgments on scire facias to
said original judgments, or either of them as to the Court
shall seem proper, together with the executions issued thereon
and all proceedings thereunder for the following reasons viz:
Because said original Judgments are irregular and
that no process or notice was served in said suits or either of
them, on said defendants:
to said suits or proceedings or either of them, in which said
judgments were rendered, by voluntary appearance or
otherwise nor was any process or notice served on any
person, on whom by law it might be served to procure
the appearance of said defendants or have judgment in either of said cases
2. Because said judgments of revival on scire facias were
irregularly rendered some null for this that said scine facies
were not served in either paid cases, on said defendants
or any person an whom by law it might be served to
procure the appearance of said defendants or have a
Judgment against them in either case: nor did they
appear to either of said scire Facias, nor were they
notified thereof in any way, nor were there two
3. Because said Executions have issued an irregular
Judgment; & as otherwise irregular & against law-
vs
Same vs Same
Reasons of defts. for setting
aside the judgments revivals
& executions in said two cases
atty
This in both Suits
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Be it remembered that on the
cause moved the court to set aside the
revival in above cause the proceedings thereon
& filed his reason therefor &
thereof which motion reasons &
in the words & figures following (here insert the
motions & reasons filed 6 augt 1833, & the
vits
1832,) which motion was by the court sustained
& the judgt of
thereon
tion
that this his bill of exceptions may be signed
sealed & made a part of the record which is
done accordingly
vs
Bill of exceptions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Be it remembered that on the
of august in the year 1833
cause moved the court to
& also to set aside all procedings thereunder a
gainst him & filed his reason therefore &
vits
in support thereof which motion reasons
&
(here insert the motions & reasons filed 6 augt
1833, & the
part
court sustained & execution
ceedings
thereunder
of which
& prays that this his bill of exceptions may be
signed sealed & made a part of the record which
is done accordingly
vs
Bill of exceptions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Be it remembered that on the
of august in the year 1833
the defts in above cause moved the court to set aside
the
on & all procedings thereunder & filed their reasons
therefor & affidants in support thereof, which mo-
tion reasons &
gures following (here insert the motions & reasons
for setting aside
1833, & the
filed 18 augt 1832, which motion was by the court
sustained & the
ceedings
which
& prays that this his bill of exceptions may be
signed sealed & made a part of the record which
is done accordingly
vs
Bill of exceptions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
You are hereby commanded to Summon
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, he be and appear in proper person before the Judge of our
say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in our said court, wherein
is
defendant, on the part of the
vs
forthwith
for
Executed on
the