Farley v. Bryant

Decision Date31 March 1864
Citation34 Mo. 512
PartiesALFRED M. FARLEY et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS S. BRYANT, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Practice.

Hohenthal v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360, affirmed.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Krum & Harding, for appellants.

J. K. Knight, for respondent.

BATES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for the delivery of personal property, in which the property was delivered to the plaintiffs.

There was a general verdict for the defendant without any assessment of damages or finding of the value of the property. Subsequently the court, on motion, ordered an assessment of the damages and the value of the property. This assessment was made by the court, the parties having waived a jury and agreed upon the amount of value and damages. The only question presented is as to the order of the court for the assessment, and the case is covered by that of Hohenthal v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360: as that decision is upon a point of practice, we think it best to adhere to it. The proceeding was not regular, but the plaintiffs are not injured by it, for no question is made of the propriety of a finding for the defendant on the merits, and the amount assessed is confessedly the right sum, and in such case we cannot reverse for the irregularity mentioned.

Judgment affirmed;

Judges Bay and Dryden concurring.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Morrison v. Yancey
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 1886
    ...plaintiff and his sureties on the replevin bond for damages. White v. Van Houten, 51 Mo. 577; Hohenthals v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360; Farley v. Bryant, 34 Mo. 512; Boutell v. Warne, 62 Mo. 350; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 535. If there was sufficient evidence to justify the court in submitting th......
  • Newman v. Twin City State Bank
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 29 Marzo 1983
    ...the plaintiff and his sureties on the replevin bond for damages. White v. VanHouten, 51 Mo. 577; Hohenthals v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360; Farley v. Bryant, 34 Mo. 512; Boutell v. Warne, 62 Mo. 350; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 535." (emphasis Glenn addressed the sole question of the propriety of th......
  • Frederick v. Tiffin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 24 Mayo 1886
    ...and damages is imperative; but may be made up by the court if neither party requires a jury. Hohenthal v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360; Farley v. Bryant, 34 Mo. 512. III. Appellant cannot escape responsibility on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter in controversy.......
  • Frederick v. Tiffin
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 24 Mayo 1886
    ... ... made up by the court if neither party requires a jury ... Hohenthal v. Watson, 28 Mo. 360; Farley v ... Bryant, 34 Mo. 512 ...          III ... Appellant cannot escape responsibility on the ground that the ... tribunal had no ... ...

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