Boggs v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 31 January 1870 |
| Citation | 45 Mo. 232 |
| Parties | A. H. BOGGS, Plaintiff in Error, v. N. P. BROOKS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to First District Court.
Johnson & Budd, for plaintiff in error.
Hall & Given, Boggs & Sloan, and Terrill & Mather, for defendant in error.
The proceedings in this case grew out of a contest in regard to the election of public administrator in Cass county. There was a trial in the County Court, and judgment for Brooks, the defendant in error. Boggs, the plaintiff in error, appealed to the Circuit Court, where his appeal was dismissed on the ground that the case could not be tried de novo in the Circuit Court. This ruling being approved in the District Court, the case is brought here for revision on writ of error.
The only point raised involves a construction of the act of 1867, providing for appeals in contested election cases. The first section declares that any person feeling aggrieved by any judgment or decision rendered by any County Court, in any contested election case or proceeding, may appeal therefrom to the Circuit Court of the county where the judgment or decision may be rendered.
The next section enacts that no appeal shall be allowed in any such case or proceeding, unless the party appealing, or some person for him, together with one or more solvent securities, to be approved by the County Court, or the clerk thereof, shall, within twenty days after the rendition of the judgment or decision, enter into bond to the adverse party in a sum sufficient to secure the payment of all costs which may have and may thereafter, by reason of the appeal, lawfully accrue, in the case or proceeding, conditioned that the applicant will prosecute his appeal, with due diligence, to a decision; and that if, on such appeal, the judgment or decision of the County Court be affirmed, or, upon a trial anew in the Circuit Court, judgment be given against him, he will pay all costs which may be adjudged against him. (1 Wagn. Stat. 578, §§ 92-3.)
Previous to the enactment of this statute there was no law in this State authorizing appeals in contested election cases. But this gives an appeal in direct terms, and makes it incumbent on the appellant to give bond and security in the same manner as in appeals from justices' court, and renders him liable, if, in a trial anew in the the Circuit Court, judgment is given against him.
It is conceded that there is no direct grant given authorizing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Aurora v. McGannon
... ... court of Lawrence county, such court was possessed of the ... cause de novo, or else the appeal was fruitless. Boggs v ... Brooks, 45 Mo. 232; St. Joseph v. Davenport, 55 ... Mo. 572; sec. 1646, R. S. 1889; sec. 1639, R. S. 1889; ... The Town of Carrollton v ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Craig v. Woodson
...section was enacted, in 1855, and down as far as 1867, no appeal lay in favor of either party, in a case of contested election. Boggs v. Brooks, 45 Mo. 232. (2) The provisions the general statutes on the subject of appeals and supersedeas have no application whatever to cases of contested e......
-
Harrison v. Norton
...result. 35 Ark. 450; 15 Cyc. 383; 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 72; 19 L. R. A. (O. S.) 157, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 217; McCrary on Elections, (3 ed.) § 232; 45 Mo. 232; 26 O. St. Taylor & Jones, for appellee. 1. The certificate of the election commissioners, while prima facie evidence, is not conclusive; and......
-
Fourth Nat'l Bank v. Scudder
...for the respondent: The circuit court tries a cause de novo on appeal from an assignee.-- St. Joseph v. Davenport, 55 Mo. 572; Boggs v. Brooks, 45 Mo. 232. Appellate courts will not review matters within an assignee's discretion in the absence of any question of abuse of discretion.-- Brigg......