Ervin v. Brady
| Citation | 48 Mo. 560 |
| Parties | ELI ERVIN, Defendant in Error, v. TERRENCE BRADY AND LUCINDA BRADY, Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Error to Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.
L. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
I. It does not appear that the former judgment pleaded in this cause was a decision on the merits. Hence it was no bar. (Ridgely v. Stillwell, 27 Mo. 128; Taylor v. Larkin, 12 Mo. 103; Bell v. Hoagland, 15 Mo. 360.)
II. Where a cause is submitted without a jury, judgment must show that all the issues have been passed upon (Russell v. Barcroft, 1 Mo. 514; Marmaduke v. McMasters, 24 Mo. 51), and cover all the issues made by the pleadings; otherwise it is insufficient (Downing v. Bourlier, 21 Mo. 149), and warrant the conclusions of law and judgment rendered thereon. (Pearce v. Burnes, 22 Mo. 577; Pearce v. Roberts, 22 Mo. 582; State v. Ruggles, 23 Mo. 339.)
G. H. Green and L. Houck, for defendant in error.
No finding of the facts by the Circuit Court was necessary. (Judge v. Booge, 47 Mo. 545.)
This action was brought by the plaintiff to have dower in certain lands admeasured and set off to the defendant as the widow of her former husband, one Masterson, deceased. The plaintiff claimed an interest in the premises by purchase from some of the ?eirs. The defendant's answer contained two counts: the first set up an interest under the homestead law, and the second a former judgment between the plaintiff's grantor and the defendnt, on a proceeding to have dower assigned in the same land.
The court found against the defendant on the first count, and her favor on the second count, and held that the former judgment was an effectual bar, and thereon rendered judgment in her favor.
The counsel for the defendant then made a motion to amend the judgment so as to incorporate in it certain findings of fact. This the court overruled, and that constitutes the only error complained of.
We know of no law requiring the court to specifically state in the judgment every fact which may arise in the cause. The judgment was for the defendant, and is a complete bar to any further action by the plaintiff for the same cause, and we do not see that the defendant can reasonably ask for anything more.
Judgment affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bovard v. Bovard
... ... judgment." (Italics ours.) [1 Black on Judgments (2 ... Ed.), p. 161, See, also 15 R. C. L. 570, 877, 878; Judge ... v. Booge, 47 Mo. 544; Ervin v. Brady, 48 Mo ... 560; Reese v. Cook, 17 Mo.App. 512; Cook v ... Hancock, 20 Tex. 2.] There is nothing on the face of the ... judgment to ... ...
-
DeGraw v. DeGraw
...the Practice Act of 1849, it is unnecessary to set out the findings on which the decree is based.-- Jones v. Booye, 47 Mo. 547; Ewing v. Brady, 48 Mo. 560; Kurlbaum v. Roepke, 27 Mo. 161; Martin v. Martin, 27 Mo. 227, 228; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 26 Mo. 235. And even under the old practice, suc......
-
DeGraw v. DeGraw
...Practice Act of 1849, it is unnecessary to set out the findings on which the decree is based.-- Jones v. Booye, 47 Mo. 547; Ewing v. Brady, 48 Mo. 560; Kurlbaum v. Roepke, 27 Mo. 161; Martin v. Martin, 27 Mo. 227, 228; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 26 Mo. 235. And even under the old practice, such om......
-
Bovard v. Bovard
...judgment." (Italics ours.) [1 Black on Judgments (2 Ed.), p. 161, See, also 15 R.C.L. 570, 877, 878; Judge v. Booge, 47 Mo. 544; Ervin v. Brady, 48 Mo. 560; Reese v. Cook, 17 Mo. App. 512; Cook v. Hancock, 20 Tex. 2.] There is nothing on the face of the judgment to indicate that it was rend......