Carr & Co. v. Edwards

Decision Date31 October 1821
Citation1 Mo. 137
PartiesCARR & CO. v. EDWARDS.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

ERROR FROM THE ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

COOK, J.

The defendant in error brought his action of assumpsit in the Circuit Court, founded on several promissory notes, and concluded to his damage, $1,000. Upon the general issue, the Judge found for the plaintiff, the sum of $2,140 69 in damages, and rendered judgment for that amount with costs; to reverse which judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted. The error assigned is, that the Circuit Court erred in rendering judgment for a greater sum than the damages laid in the declaration.

According to the uniform decisions at common law, if the jury find greater damages than the plaintiff has counted for, and the Court render judgment according to such finding, it is error (Bac. Abr. 267, D. damages 2, and authorities there cited); but it is contended by the counsel for the defendant in error that this judgment is aided by the statute regulating judicial proceedings in this State. The provisions relied on, are sections 18, 24 and 25, (under the head “Judicial Proceedings,” in the Digest). These provisions were manifestly made in aid of informal pleadings; but we are at a loss to discover their influence upon form, when parties choose to adopt it; nor do we perceive, upon what principles they are to be so construed, as to change the rules of common law, as to the judgment which the Court should render; and if the position assumed in argument be correct, that if the conclusion to the plaintiff's damage had been omitted, it would have been good after verdict; yet it does not follow that the plaintiff is not limited to the damages for which he has thought proper to count.

It is, however, objected by the counsel for the defendant in error, that this point cannot be examined by this Court, as the question was not made in the Circuit Court, and the statute regulating proceedings in this Court, is relied on, which provides, that on appeal or writ of error, the Supreme Court shall take no exceptions to the proceedings of the Circuit Court, except such as shall have been expressly decided on. If the final judgment of the Circuit Court is not an express decision within the meaning of the statute, no error in such judgment could be corrected in this Court; that being the end of all proceedings in that Court. In this case, the party could not have redressed himself by motion, in arrest of judgment, because the declaration is sufficient in form and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Bird v. Sellers
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1894
    ...This error being apparent on the face of the record, may be taken advantage of, though no motion in arrest of judgment was filed. Carr v. Edwards, 1 Mo. 137; Maupin Triplett, 5 Mo. 423; Hamstead v. Stone, 2 Mo. 66; Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31; State ex rel. v. Matson, 38 Mo. 489; Bagby v. E......
  • City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1937
    ... ... inconsistent with that taken by him upon the trial. Knapp ... v. Knapp & Co., 29 S.W. 885, 127 Mo. 53; Edwards v ... Stewart, 44 S.W. 326, 141 Mo. 562. (d) An assignment of ... error as to a matter not embraced in the pleadings will not ... be considered ... would be considered on appeal although no motion for new ... trial or in arrest of judgment was filed. [ Carr & Co. v ... Edwards (1821), 1 Mo. 137; Pratt v. Rogers ... (1837), 5 Mo. 51; Benton v. Lindell (1847), 10 Mo ... 557; Bateson v. Clark, ... ...
  • Watts v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 25, 2012
    ...Court render judgment according to such finding, it is error.” Klotz, 311 S.W.3d at 777 (Wolff, J., concurring)(quoting, Carr & Co. v. Edwards, 1 Mo. 137, 137 (Mo.1821)). Similarly, in Hoyt v. Reed, 16 Mo. 294, 294 (1852), the Court affirmed the trial court's remittitur of damages because t......
  • Hicks v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1884
    ...v. Story, 17 Conn. 364; Janney v. Spedden, 38 Mo. 395. (5) Nor can a party recover in any case a greater sum than that sued for. Carr v. Edwards, 1 Mo. 137; Armstrong v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 100, 105-6, and cases cited. Jackson asked judgment for $338.50, surplus proceeds of sale of hotel ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT