68 S.W. 107 (Mo.App. 1902), The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Young

Citation:68 S.W. 107, 94 Mo.App. 204
Opinion Judge:BLAND, P. J. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff,
Party Name:THE BARBER ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER YOUNG et al., Defendants; MARY E. GAEBLER, Respondent
Attorney:Adiel Sherwood for appellant. W. M. Kinsey for intervener.
Judge Panel:BLAND, P. J. Barclay and Goode, JJ., concur.
Case Date:April 29, 1902
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 107

68 S.W. 107 (Mo.App. 1902)

94 Mo.App. 204

THE BARBER ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

ALEXANDER YOUNG et al., Defendants;

MARY E. GAEBLER, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

April 29, 1902

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Selden P. Spencer, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Adiel Sherwood for appellant.

(1) In this State, a writ of error always issues after final judgment in the trial court, and so at common law. Secs. 835, 837, R. S. 1899; Coke Litt., 288b. (2) A writ of error is a constitutional method of review, side by side with appeal. Secs. 12, 20, 27, art. 6, and amendment 1884, Constitution; Blunt v. Sheppard, 1 Mo. 219; Calloway v. State, 1 Mo. 211; English v. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 780; Jim v. State, 3 Mo. 147. (3) A writ of error is not a cause of action or suit, but a writ which issues to review the final judgment of a trial court. Hinchman v. Rutan, 31 N. J. L. 499; Moore v. Cooley, 2 Hill 412. "A writ of error is a commission to judges of a superior court, by which they are authorized to examine the record upon which a judgment was given in an inferior court, and on such examination, to reverse or affirm the same, according to law." 3 Bacon Abr., 320. (4) And therefore differs from another writ of action. Jenk. Rep. 25 and 140; 2 Inst. (Ed. 1797), 39-40; Cohens v. Va., 6 Wheat. 264; Co. Litt. 288b; Cro. Ja., 160; Manning v. Montgomery, 1 Wash. 434; Garrison v. Cheeny, Ib. 489; Martin v. Stites, 11 Vesey 200; Duke v. Helms, 46 S.W. 761; Fitzsimmons v. Johnson, 17 S.W. 100; Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 170; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 205; Stephen Pl. (3 Ed. Tyler), 40, 41, 141, 142, 143, 144, 162; Hinchman v. Rutan, 31 N. J. L. 499; 1 Roll Ab., 747, pl. 13; Wright v. Mutt, 1 Durn. and East. 388; s. c., I. T. R. Heyden v. Godsale, 2 Bulstrode 162; Overseers v. Beedle, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 11; McDonald v. Bank, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 35; Moore v. Cooley, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 412; Laidler v. Foster, 4 Barn. and Cress. 116; 2 Tidd's Pr. (3 Am. Ed.) 1134; Camden et al. v. Edie, 1 H. Black 21; 3 Story Const. (5 Ed.), secs. 1761, 1762; Works on Juris., sec. 85, p. 693; In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 462. (5) "A writ of error is a commission; it is not an action." 1 Coke's Second Inst. (Ed. 1797), 39, 40; Heyden v. Godsole, 2 Bulstrode 162. (6) A writ of error is not a "suit," or "action," within the meaning of a statute providing that no suit commenced by or against certain officials should be abated, etc. Overseers v. Beedle, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 11. (7) The writ of error does not dissolve or revoke the judgment of the court below. It simply suspends the enforcement of the judgment; and when a judgment is reversed or affirmed upon a writ of error or appeal by an appellate court, manifestly the judgment of the court below is affirmed or reversed, and if reversed the mandate is then transmitted to the lower court to enter a judgment in conformity with the ruling of the appellate court. Lewis v. Railroad, 59 Mo. 503; State ex rel. v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56; Railroad v. Atkinson, 17 Mo.App. 484; State ex rel. v. Woodson, 128 Mo. 516; Story's Constitution (5 Ed.), sec. 1761; Matthewson v. Railroad, 44 Mo.App. 99. (8) Section 837 of our statute gives three years within which to sue out a writ of error and the action in contemplation of law is pending in the lower court till the time to sue out the writ has expired. The successful party in the trial court can hardly have an attorney of record upon whom notice of the writ can be legally served, unless the writ of error be a continuation of the litigation in that court. In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 462; State ex rel. v. Canfield, 42 L. R. A. 73; Harle v. Langdon's Heir's, 60 Tex. 555; Hart v. Mills, 38 Tex. 513; Brackenridge v. San Antonio, 39 Tex. 66; Hickcock v. Ball, 46 Tex. 613; Moore v. Moore, 59 Tex. 54; Duke v. Helms, 46 S.W. 761; Clark v. Farrow, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 446; Fitzsimmons v. Johnson, 17 S.W. 100; Manning v. Montgomery, 1 Wash. 434; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Lampton, 79 Mo.App. 286; Bailey v. Winn, 113 Mo. 155. (9) At common law, the attorney of record in the trial court could waive writ of error or notice of writ and bar right of his client to either. Laidler v. Foster, 4 Barn. & Cress. 116; Executors of Wright Bart., v. Nutt, 1 T. R. 388; Camden v. Edie, 1 H. Black 21; Bacon Abr., 380, under "Error" and Id. 490, under "Attorney"; 1 Coke Second Inst. (Ed. 1797), 39, 40. (10) Aldrich v. Aetna Co., 8 Wall. 491; Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. (U.S.) 150...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP