Higgs v. Hunt

Decision Date31 October 1881
Citation75 Mo. 106
PartiesHIGGS v. HUNT, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--HON. S. H. WOODSON, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Wm. E. Sheffield for appellant.

Lathrop & Smith for respondent.

NORTON, J.

This cause is here on the appeal of defendants from a judgment of the Jackson county circuit court rendered in a suit instituted therein on the following obligation, viz:

We, the undersigned, do hereby agree to save R. E. Higgs harmless in the sum of $180 as bondsman in the case of G. P. Schmidt against The Kansas Midland Railroad, the above being the amount of judgment and costs.”

R. H. HUNT.

L. K. THATCHER.

Various errors are assigned, but the only one which counsel for defendants have deemed of sufficient importance to call our attention to in his brief, is as to the action of the court in refusing to sustain their motion for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was in excess of the amount claimed in the petition, the amount claimed being $180, and the judgment being for $187.80.

Under the authority of the case of Beckwith v. Boyce, 12 Mo. 440, error was committed in overruling the motion for new trial. As plaintiff, however, enters a remittitur for $7.80, the excess in the judgment, the error is cured and obviates the necessity which would otherwise exist for reversing the judgment, which is in all respects affirmed except as to said sum of $7.80.

Inasmuch as defendants have been compelled to come to this court for the correction of this error, the plaintiff will be required to pay the costs of this appeal, which are hereby adjudged against him. Miller v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Perkins v. Wilcox
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1922
    ...of an amount sufficient to bring the verdict and the judgment down to within the limits of the Damage Act. (a) This can be done. Higgs v. Hunt, 75 Mo. 106; Cook v. Globe Printing Co., 227 Mo. 471, Burdict v. Railway Co., 123 Mo. 242; Reynolds v. Transit Company, 189 Mo. 423. (b) The judgmen......
  • Gray v.St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1883
    ...Johnston v. Morrow, 60 Mo. 339; Phillips v. Evans, 64 Mo. 22; Miller v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545, 547; Clark v. Bullock, 65 Mo. 535; Higgs v. Hunt, 75 Mo. 106, 107; Sharp v. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660, 674. Motion in arrest properly overruled. 1 R. S. 1879, § 3707. EWING, C. This was an action in eject......
  • Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Kansas City & Independence Air Line
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 1905
    ... ... of appeal. Johnson v. Morrow, 60 Mo. 339; Miller ... v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545; Clark v. Bullock, 65 Mo ... 535; Peck v Childers, 73 Mo. 484; Higgs v ... Hunt, 75 Mo. 106; Kimes v. Railroad, 85 Mo ... 611; Dempsey v. Schawacker, 140 Mo. 680; Priest ... v. Deaver, 22 Mo.App. 276; Link v ... ...
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Fitchett
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1905
    ...Ferguson, 38 Ark. 238; Dodds v. Roane, 36 Ark. 511; Duffy v. Dubuque, 63 Iowa 171, 18 N.W. 900; Attrell v. Patterson, 58 Md. 226; Higgs v. Hunt, 75 Mo. 106. A verdict for damages may be cured by release of the excess in actions for tort as well as in actions on contracts. Little Rock Ry. Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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