Davis v. Scripps
| Decision Date | 30 April 1830 |
| Citation | 2 Mo. 187 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. SCRIPPS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CAPE GIRARDEAU CIRCUIT COURT
M'GIRK, C. J.
Davis brought his action of ejectment against Scripps for a lot of ground in the town of Jackson. The cause went to trial on the general issue. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. A bill of exceptions preserved the testimony given in the case. The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The verdict is entered in the common form, and judgment in form rendered thereon. The bill of exceptions says that the cause and evidence were submitted to the court, and the court gave judgment for the defendant; to which opinion of the court the defendant excepts, &c.
Several errors have been assigned and insisted on to reverse this judgment. It will be unnecessary to go into an examination of the errors, because it does not appear that any distinct point was made by the court below. Here the facts and the law were both submitted to the court. Whether the objection goes to the error of the court in finding a wrong verdict upon testimony too weak to warrant the verdict, or to the error of the court in a misconception of the law, does not appear. If the court erred as a jury, the mode of redress is to ask for a new trial, and if that is improperly refused, the wrong may be redressed by this court. But if the error is an error in point of law, then the party should expressly bring his point before this court in a shape clearly showing that the point of law was decided on by the court.(a) As far as we have been able to look into the case, there is no error. The judgment is affirmed.
(a). See Brown v. Dumay ante, 125; Montgomery v. Blair, post 180; Polk v. State; 4 Mo. R. 544; Thompson v. Child, 6 Mo. R. 162; Fugate v. Muir, 9 Mo. R. 355; Vaughn v. State, 9 Mo. R. 379; Von Phul v. St. Louis, 9 Mo. R. 49; McEvoy v. Lane et al., 9 Mo. R. 49; Higgins v. Breen, 9 Mo. R. 493; Floersh v. Bank, Mo. R. 576; Rhodes v. White, 11 Mo. R. 623; Payne v. State, 13 Mo. R. 444; Warner v. Morin, 13 Mo. R 455; Watson v. Pieree et al., 11 Mo. R. 358; Vivion v. Lafayette Co., 13 Mo. R. 452; Fine v. Rogers, 15 Mo. R. 315; Coot v. Morgan, 24 Mo. R. 522; Wagner v. Jacoby, 26 Mo. R. 530; Prince v. Cole, 2 Mo. R. 486; Gray v. Heslep, 33 Mo. R. 243; Martin v. Boyse, 34 Mo. R. 7; Banks v. Ludes, 39 Mo. R 105 Bishop v. Ransom, 39 Mo. R. 416; Morgner v. Kister, 12 Mo. R. .
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lilly v. Menke
...appellate jurisdiction, as well as more just to litigants and to the trial judges, than is the opposite doctrine. As early as Davis v. Scripps (1830), 2 Mo. 187, it was said that: "If the court erred as a jury, the mode of redress is to ask for a new trial, and, if that is improperly refuse......
-
Lilly v. Menke
...appellate jurisdiction, as well as more just to litigants and to the trial courts, than is the opposite doctrine. As early as Davis v. Scripps (1830) 2 Mo. 187, it was said that: "If the court erred as a jury, the mode of redress is to ask for a new trial, and, if that is improperly refused......
-
Cunningham v. Snow
...takes away this statutory right. In no other way can it be ascertained upon what theory of law the court determined the cause. Davis v. Scripps, 2 Mo. 187. In a case like this, a simple action of ejectment, on the general issue, tried before the court without the intervention of a jury, if ......
- The State v. Abel