Geers v. Bilyeu

• Decision Date: 03 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 17675.,17675.
• Parties: GEERS v. BILYEU.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

199 S.W. 138

GEERS v. BILYEU.

No. 17675.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 3, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action of ejectment by John Geers against Clayton Bilyeu. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Barton & Impey, of Houston, for appellant. Lamar & Lamar, of Houston, for respondent.

BLAIR, J.

Ejectment. The judgment of the Texas circuit court was for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. No exception was saved to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for new trial. Matters of exception are not before us. It is contended the "finding and judgment do not sufficiently describe the land to enable the sheriff to deliver it to plaintiff without exercising judicial functions," and that the judgment must be reversed for that reason. The contest is over a boundary line. The judgment of the court fixes the line between appellant and respondent, describing it as "beginning at a point 167 rods and 18 links east of the southwest corner of section 23, Twp. 33 north, range 11 west, on the south line of said section 23; thence running north 32½ degrees west, 49 rods; thence north 17½ degrees west, 61 rods, and 22 links; thence north 27¾ degrees west, 25 rods, and 5 links; thence north 4½ degrees west to the section line between sections 23 and 14, Twp. 33 north, range 11 west" — and finds that appellant was in possession of a strip of land 20 rods wide on the east side of the "above-described line, and was unlawfully withholding," etc.

We perceive no uncertainty in this judgment on its face. It complies with the rule upon which appellant relies. The complaint made of the judgment as presented in appellant's brief harks back to matters of exception which cannot be considered for the reason already stated, and for the reason the motion for new trial makes no complaint of any uncertainty in the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed. All concur.