City of St. Louis v. Milligan
| Decision Date | 31 March 1853 |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 181 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant in Error, v. MILLIGAN et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Case affirmed, because there was no bill of exceptions to the action of the court upon motions.
J. B. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
C. G. Mauro, for defendant in error.RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
Nothing is saved by the bill of exceptions on the record of this case, to show the motions made by the defendant in the Criminal Court. The transcript sent up to this court by the clerk, is full of motions; some sustained, others overruled. But no where does it appear that any decision of the court, in overruling or in sustaining any motion, was excepted to, nor is there any bill of exceptions in the record. In the case of the State of Missouri v. Wall, (15 Mo. 208,) it was said, that “it does not follow that every motion made in a cause becomes part of the record, because the clerk, in copying the pleadings, should insert such motions.” The action of the court, and the grounds thereof, should be made part of the record by bill of exceptions. There being no bill of exceptions in this case, the judgment of the court below is affirmed, the other judges concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell Planing Mill Company v. Allison
...the constitutional amendment of 1884, because they recognized that the result they had reached was contrary to the previous decision of the St. Louis court appeals in Hayden v. Wulfing (1885) 19 Mo.App. 353. Other decisions of the latter court might be mentioned which accord with the Hayden......
-
Kammann v. Chris Bimmerle Painting Company
...that it will be considered by the appellate court. [United States v. Gamble, 10 Mo. l. c. 457; Christy v. Myers, 21 Mo. 112; St. Louis v. Milligan, 18 Mo. 181; re Webster, 26 Mo.App. 355; McNeil v. Insurance Co., 30 Mo.App. 306; Mockler v. Skellett, 36 Mo.App. 174; Monroe Bank v. Finks, 40 ......
-
Pearson v. O'Connor
...set out in the record, that does not make it a part of it. [United States v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 457; Christy v. Myers, 21 Mo. 112; St. Louis v. Milligan, 18 Mo. 181; In re Webster, 36 Mo.App. 355; McNeil v. Co., 30 Mo.App. 306; Mockler v. Skellett, 36 Mo.App. 174; Monroe Bank v. Finks, 40 Mo.Ap......
-
State v. Pints
...of the court in overruling motions, were preserved, and all that we can consider in reviewing the case is the record proper. (St. Louis vs. Milligan, 18 Mo. 181; Hoyt vs. Williams, 41 Mo. 270.) In the case of Bateson vs. Clark, (37 Mo. 31) it was decided by this court that “the record prope......