Givens v. Van Studdiford
Decision Date | 16 January 1883 |
Parties | JAMES GIVENS, Respondent, v. HENRY VAN STUDDIFORD, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HORNER, J.
Affirmed.
BROADHEAD & HAEUSSLER and E. C. SIMMONS, for the appellant.
JOHN R. CHRISTIAN, for the respondent.
This is an action for damages against defendant, for permitting a nuisance to be established and maintained on defendant's premises, by which the value of plaintiff's adjoining premises was injured, and the rents which would otherwise have been derived from them was lost. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The case has been here before, and is reported in 4 Missouri Appeals, at page 498.
The judgment was rendered on November 28, 1881. The motion for a new trial filed at the October term was overruled on May 1, 1882. There is nothing in the record as to any continuance of the motion for a new trial, either from the October term to the December term, or from the December term to the February term, or from the February term to the April term of the circuit court. It is contended for the respondent that, as the bill of exceptions was not filed until the third term after the case was tried; and, as no agreement of counsel that it should be filed out of time is shown, there is no bill of exceptions in the case that can be considered by this court.
The Statute of Westminster giving bills of exception in England, appointed no time for sealing these bills. But although no time was appointed, the English judges held that the nature and reason of the thing required that the exceptions should be reduced to writing when taken and disallowed. The usual practice in England and this country was, to request the judge to note the exception in writing, and afterwards, during the session of the court, to submit the bill of exception to him for correction from his notes. But, although the courts held that the bills ought to be presented during the trial, the parties were indulged during the term, and no longer. The reason of the rule was the obvious difficulty in settling a bill of exceptions, after the lapse of time when the matters complained of had ceased to be fresh in the mind of the judge.
Under the old Missouri statute (Rev. Stats. 1845, p. 820, sect. 25), the ruling was more strict, and it was held that the exceptions must be reduced to writing and signed during the trial. Consaul v. Lidell, 7 Mo. 250. Although by consent of parties, the bill might be presented for the judge's signature even at the next term. Pomeroy v. Selmes, 8 Mo. 727, 732; Ellis v. Andrews, 25 Mo. 328. No change in this respect was made by the reformed Code of Practice of 1849. But, soon after that date, the statutory provision was changed; and the law has remained ever since as it is to be found in the revision of 1855 , that, ) Rev. Stats., sect. 3636. Under this provision the question arose, whether, if the trial court continued the motion for a new trial until the next succeeding term, this would have the effect of carrying with it the cause so that exceptions could be preserved and the bill signed at the next term. The supreme court held that it would. Riddlesbarger v. McDaniel, 38 Mo. 138. Judge Wagner, delivering the opinion of the court, says:--
It is remarked by Chief Justice Sherwood in Henze v. Railroad Company (71 Mo. 636, 644), that, since the decision in 38 Missouri Reports just cited, the precise point had never been before the supreme court. Whether, if the case were presented, it would be held that, if the motion were continued from term to term, a bill of exceptions might be signed at the term at which the motion was determined, without regard to the lapse of time, may perhaps be questionable. It does not seem necessarily to follow, because a bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson v. Withrow
...68 Mo. 156; Bosley v. Hart, 7 Mo. App. 581; Coste v. Stifel, 8 Mo. App. 601), and hence will not be received on appeal.-- Givens v. Van Studdiford, 13 Mo. App. 168. The owner can not by voluntary and improvident payments to the contractor defeat a sub-contractor's lien.-- Garnett v. Berry, ......
-
Hugumin v. Hinds
...rule is that the continuance will be presumed in support of the regularity of the trial court's action in the premises. Givens v. Van Studdiford (St. L.) 13 Mo. App. 168, and 86 Mo. 149, 56 Am. Rep. 4. On the merits of the appeal, the opinion heretofore filed has been modified in some respe......
-
Bank of North America v. Fletcher
...or prolonged to such term by a continuance of the motion for new trial. We have had much difficulty with this question. Givens v. Van Studdiford, 13 Mo. App. 168; Nelson v. Withrow, 14 Mo. App. 270. But in all the cases where it has troubled us, it appeared of record that the motion for new......
-
St. Louis Plattdeutscher Club v. Tegeler
...a new trial was submitted at a term subsequent to that at which the judgment was rendered.-- Gill v. Scruggs, 79 Mo. 187; Givens v. Van Studdiford, 13 Mo. App. 168. And there being no general or special order of the court continuing the motion, it is necessary that the bill of exceptions sh......