20 S.W. 318 (Mo. 1892), the City of St. Louis v. Sieferer

Citation:20 S.W. 318, 111 Mo. 662
Opinion Judge:Barclay, J.
Party Name:The City of St. Louis, Appellant, v. Sieferer et al
Attorney:W. C. Marshall for appellant. H. A. Loevy for respondents.
Judge Panel:Barclay, J. Chief Justice Sherwood, Black and Brace, JJ., concur. Chief Justice Sherwood, Black and Brace, JJ., concur.
Case Date:October 31, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 318

20 S.W. 318 (Mo. 1892)

111 Mo. 662

The City of St. Louis, Appellant,

v.

Sieferer et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

October 31, 1892

          Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jacob Klein, Judge.

         The grounds of the motion for new trial, mentioned in the opinion, are thus stated in the motion:

         "First. The court erred in admitting improper and illegal evidence offered by defendant.

         "Second. The court erred in giving improper and illegal instructions asked by defendant.

         "Third. The finding and judgment are against the evidence and weight of evidence.

         "Fourth. The finding and judgment are against the law.

         "Fifth. The finding and judgment are against the law and the evidence, and against the law under the evidence.

         "Sixth. The finding and judgment were for the defendant when they should have been for the plaintiff."

          Affirmed.

         W. C. Marshall for appellant.

         (1) The circuit court committed error in excluding the notice published by the city counselor. (2) The court also erred in excluding the tax bill. Haywood v. Russell, 44 App. 252; State v. Green, 66 Mo. 631; Reynolds v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 71; Patrick v. Faulke, 45 Mo. 312; Beaudean v. Cape Girardeau, 71 Mo. 397; Hodgson v. Banking House, 9 Mo.App. 24; Semple v. Thomas, 10 Mo.App. 457; Hahn v. Dierks, 37 Mo. 574. (3) The circuit court erred in giving the instruction that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

         H. A. Loevy for respondents.

         (1) The judgment cannot be reviewed because appellant's motion for new trial does not allege as error that the trial court excluded evidence offered by appellant, which is virtually the only error assigned by Mr. Marshall. Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 3557; McQuillan's Digest, 469, sec. 464; 460, sec. 487; St. Louis v. Brewing Co., 96 Mo. 678, a parallel case. (2) The bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the evidence; the appellate court cannot in such case review the judgment. State v. Fritterer, 65 Mo. 422; State v. Clarkson, 96 Mo. 364. (3) The bill of exceptions does not show the basis of respondents' objection to this tax bill, so that this court cannot pass upon the trial court's ruling, and will presume it was right. Cockrell v. Proctor, 65 Mo. 41. (4) Objections to evidence must specify reasons or...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP