City of St. Louis v. Sieferer

• Decision Date: 31 October 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 318,111 Mo. 662
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. SIEFERER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W. 318

111 Mo. 662

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. SIEFERER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

October 31, 1892.

APPEAL — REVIEW — OBJECTIONS NOT RAISED BELOW.

1. Where the only assigned errors relate to the exclusion of material parts of plaintiff's evidence at the trial, and that point was not made a ground of the motion for new trial, it cannot be taken advantage of upon appeal.

2. The supreme court only reviews such matters of exception as have been expressly passed upon by the trial court.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; JACOB KLEIN, Judge.

Action by the city of St. Louis against Mina Sieferer and others to recover the amount of a special tax bill for benefits assessed on account of the opening of an avenue. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BARCLAY, J.:

The grounds for the motion for new trial, mentioned in the opinion, are thus stated in the motion: "(1) The court erred in admitting improper and illegal evidence offered by defendants. (2) The court erred in giving improper and illegal instructions asked by defendants. (3) The finding and judgment is against the evidence and weight of evidence. (4) The finding and judgment is against the law. (5) The finding and judgment is against the law and the evidence, and against the law under the evidence. (6) The finding and judgment were for the defendants, when it should have been for the plaintiff."

W. C. Marshall, for appellant. H. A. Loevy, for respondents.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts.)

This action is to recover the amount of a special tax bill for benefits assessed on account of the opening of an avenue in the city of St. Louis. Defendants put in issue the plaintiff's alleged facts. At the trial the circuit court excluded the tax bill, the basis of the action, and also the published notice to property owners, which formed essential parts of plaintiff's case. At the close of the hearing the court declared that, upon the evidence adduced, plaintiff was not entitled to recover. That instruction was clearly correct, as the testimony then stood. The only real question in the record arises upon a consideration of the court's rulings, excluding the material proofs offered by plaintiff, above mentioned. Defendants now insist that those rulings are not reviewable, inasmuch as plaintiff's motion for a new trial does not refer to them, or in any way complain of the...