Bailey v. Wilson
| Citation | 29 Mo. 21 |
| Parties | BAILEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILSON, Defendant in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1859 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In cases tried by the court under the practice act of 1849, there should be a finding of the facts.
2. The following is not a sufficient finding of the facts, in an action of ejectment, within the meaning of the practice act of 1849: “This cause being submitted to the court for trial, the court finds that said defendant is not guilty of unlawfully withholding from said plaintiff the possession of the premises in the petition mentioned in manner and form as therein stated it is therefore considered by the court,” &c.
Error to St. Charles Circuit Court.
Broadhead, for plaintiff in error.
I. The court should have found the facts as required by the practice act of 1849. (15 Mo. 400; 17 Mo. 550; 19 Mo. 122; 20 Mo. 132; 24 Mo. 51; 26 Mo. 166, 494; 27 Mo. 418.)
Wells & E. A. Lewis, for defendant in error.
I. The finding conforms to the petition. The only allegation in the petition in issue was “found” by the court in the very language in which it is stated in the petition. If the fact is correctly stated in the petition, the same fact is correctly found by the court. The word “facts” in the second section of the sixth article has the same signification as it has in the second section of the fifteenth article. The court is not bound to find more facts than the plaintiff is bound to allege. If the facts stated in the petition, when found to be true, are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, then those same facts, being all in issue, are, when found not to be true, sufficient to entitle the defendant to a judgment. If the facts are not sufficiently stated in the petition, the judgment is for the right party and should not be disturbed. They are not sufficiently stated. The plaintiff alleges that on a certain day he “was entitled to the possession of the premises.” This is not simply a fact. It involves all the facts as well as the law on which his right to recover depends. No case can be found in which a judgment for the defendant has been reversed for want of a sufficient finding.
This case was tried by the court under the practice act of 1849, and there was no finding of facts. The entry upon the record is: &c.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBride v. Bank & Trust Co., 31671.
...and object of statute was to give adequate right of review to losing party and to compel that court to state theory of decision. Bailey v. Wilson, 29 Mo. 21; Nichols v. Carter, 49 Mo. App. 401; Pearce v. Burns, 22 Mo. 577. (b) Authorities reviewed. Korneman v. Davis, 281 Mo. 234, 219 S.W. 9......
-
McBride v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
...and object of statute was to give adequate right of review to losing party and to compel that court to state theory of decision. Bailey v. Wilson, 29 Mo. 21; v. Carter, 49 Mo.App. 401; Pearce v. Burns, 22 Mo. 577. (b) Authorities reviewed. Korneman v. Davis, 281 Mo. 234, 219 S.W. 904; St. L......
-
In re Kansas City Star Co.
...for the court to exclude from its consideration undisputed evidence and refuse to make findings of fact offered by appellants. Bailey v. Wilson, 29 Mo. 21; v. Carter, 49 Mo.App. 401; Pearce v. Burns, 22 Mo. 577; Korneman v. Davis, 281 Mo. 234, 219 S.W. 904; St. Louis Hospital Assn. v. Willi......
-
In re Kansas City Star Co.
...for the court to exclude from its consideration undisputed evidence and refuse to make findings of fact offered by appellants. Bailey v. Wilson, 29 Mo. 21; Nichols v. Carter, 49 Mo. App. 401; Pearce v. Burns, 22 Mo. 577; Korneman v. Davis, 281 Mo. 234, 219 S.W. 904; St. Louis Hospital Assn.......