Higbee v. Bowers
Decision Date | 31 July 1845 |
Citation | 9 Mo. 354 |
Parties | HIGBEE ET AL. v. BOWERS. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM PLATTE.
HICKMAN, for Appellant.
E. L. EDWARDS, for Appellee. 1. Nothing can be assigned for error in this court, “except such as was made the subject of exceptions below.” See Swearingen v. Newman, 4 Mo. R. 456; Shelton v. Ford & Whitehill, 7 Mo. R. 211; Steamboat Thames v. Erskine & Gore, 7 Mo. R. 215. 2. The defendant excepted, first, to the introduction of the lease, made an exhibit in the bill; second, to the overruling of the motion to set aside the decree; third, to the exclusion of certain deeds offered by them in evidence.
The only decree in this case is, that the defendants pay the complainant his costs here expended, and that execution issue therefor. It does not appear what has become of the bill or the suit; for aught that appears, it may be still pending. This, then, is not a final decree, within the meaning of the statute, from which an appeal or writ of error will lie.(a) Let the appeal be dismissed.
(a). See 9 Mo. 172.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neyens v. Flesher
...Shuman, supra; Scott v. Burton, supra; Hancock v. Metz, 7 Tex. 178;Eastham, Ex'r, v. Sallis, 60 Tex. 576; Lisle v. Rhea, supra; Higbee et al. v. Bowers, 9 Mo. 354;Young, Adm'r, v. Stonebreaker et al., 33 Mo. 117;Smarr v. McMaster, 34 Mo. 204;Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278;Preston v. Missouri, e......
-
Neyens v. Flesher
...supra; Scott v. Burton, supra; Hancock v. Metz (1851), 7 Tex. 177; Eastham v. Sallis (1884), 60 Tex. 576; Lisle v. Rhea, supra; Higbee v. Bowers (1845), 9 Mo. 354; Young v. Stonebreaker (1862), 33 Mo. Smarr v. McMaster (1863), 34 Mo. 204; Boggess v. Cox (1871), 48 Mo. 278; Preston v. Missou......
-
Hall v. Patterson
...influence of certain cases cited with apparent approval in that opinion from Texas and Missouri. Among the cases there cited are Higbee v. Bowers, 9 Mo. 354, and Warren v. Shuman, 5 Tex. 441. In the former the judgment was 'that the defendants pay the complainant his cost herein expended, a......
- Biehler v. Coonce