Hicks v. Merry
| Decision Date | 30 June 1836 |
| Parties | HICKS v. MERRY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
Merry, the appellee, brought an action before two justices of the peace, against Hicks, the appellant (and another who was not served with process), for an unlawful detainer of a house and lot in St. Louis. The justices gave judgment for Merry, which on certiorari was affirmed in the Circuit Court and from the Circuit Court, Hicks has appealed to this court.
DARBY and HAMILTON, for Appellant. Reasons for reversing the judgment, &c., in this cause: 1. Because the justices had no jurisdiction. 2. Because this was a proceeding almost exclusively upon title, and the justices proceeded in the cause, and permitted the same to go to the jury, contrary to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, overruling the motion of the defendant's attorney to stop the proceedings.
Counsel for Appellee. The errors assigned in the Circuit Court are not within the provisions of the act of 1825, under which the proceedings were had. The evidence given or rejected, and the decision of the justices thereon, form no part of the record, process or proceedings. A bill of exceptions could not be taken, and much less will the statement of the justices be received. See Sholer v. Smith and others, 3 Mo. R. 416; Rev. Code, 1825, 398.
The objections insisted on by the appellant's counsel cannot be raised. The evidence given or rejected, and the decisions of the justices thereon, form no part of the record, process or proceedings to be reviewed in the Circuit Court; these appear in due form and to have been taken in proper time. and it is only for want of some formality in the proceedings, or for some defect in the process, that the judgment of the justices is to be set aside.(a) The judgment is affirmed with costs, and it is ordered that a writ of restitution be awarded to the appellee.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Parker-Washington Co. v. City of St. Louis
... ... power of the reviewing court is limited to the examination of ... that record. Sholar v. Smith, 3 Mo. 294; Hicks ... v. Merry, 4 Mo. 355; Railroad v. State Board, ... 64 Mo. 308; State ex rel. v. Teasdale, 101 Mo. 174; ... State ex rel. v. Walbridge, ... ...
-
State v. Robertson
...up only the record proper of the tribunal to which it is addressed; it does not bring up the evidence (Sholar v. Smyth, 3 Mo. 416; Hicks v. Merry, 4 Mo. 355; Railroad v. State Board, 64 Mo. 294; State ex rel. Teasdale v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174 ; Ward v. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo. 309 ; Stat......
-
State ex rel. Pedigo v. Robertson
...up only the record proper of the tribunal to which it is addressed; it does not bring up the evidence (Sholar v. Smyth, 3 Mo. 416; Hicks v. Merry, 4 Mo. 355; Railroad v. State Board, 64 Mo. 294; State ex rel. Teasdale v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174 ; Ward v. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo. 309 ; Stat......
-
State v. City of St. Louis
...up only the record proper of the tribunal to which it is addressed. It does not bring up the evidence. Sholar v. Smith, 3 Mo. 416; Hicks v. Murry, 4 Mo. 355; Hannibal & St. J. Ry. v. State Board, 64 Mo. 294; State ex rel. Teasdale v. Smith, 14 S. W. 108, 101 Mo. 174; Ward v. Board of Equali......