Kurlbaum v. Roepke
| Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
| Citation | 27 Mo. 161 |
| Parties | KURLBAUM, Respondent, v. ROEPKE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The Revised Code of 1855 does not require a finding of the facts where a cause is tried by the court.
2. Where a cause is tried by the court without a jury and no instructions or declarations of law are asked or given, the Supreme Court will not interfere by ordering a new trial.
Appeals from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
Goodlett, for appellant.
S. H. Gardner, for respondent.
This suit was commenced after the code of 1855 was in force. The case was tried by the court, the parties having waived a jury. The present code does not require a finding of the facts when the issues in a cause are tried by the court.
The old practice in such cases is now revived. When a cause is tried by the court sitting as a jury and no instructions or declarations of law are asked or given on the trial, his court will not interfere by ordering a new trial.
Judge Napton concurring, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheelock v. Overshiner
... ... substantial evidence to sustain the findings. Handlan v ... McManus, 100 Mo. 124, 137; Kolbaum v. Roepke, ... 27 Mo. 161; Altum v. Arnold, 27 Mo. 264; Easley ... v. Elliott, 43 Mo. 290; Harrington v. Minor, 80 ... Mo. 270; Cunningham v. Snow, 82 Mo ... ...
-
Judge v. Booge
...inconvenient in practice. Since the practice act of 1855, it is not necessary to set out the facts in the body of the judgment. (27 Mo. 161, 227, 230.) The only question is, does the judgment fairly determine the rights of the parties? Is the judgment a just conclusion upon the whole record......
-
Waddell v. Williams
...in the case of Weilandy et al. v. Lemuel, 47 Mo. 322. (See also Taylor v. Russell, 8 Mo. 701; Little v. Nelson, 8 Mo. 709; Kurlbaum v. Roepke, 27 Mo. 161; Easly v. Elliott, 43 Mo. 289; McEvoy v. Lane, 9 Mo. 48; Wilson v. North Mo. R.R. Co., 46 Mo. 36.) The decision in this case is contrary ......
-
DeGraw v. DeGraw
...it is unnecessary to set out the findings on which the decree is based.-- Jones v. Booye, 47 Mo. 547; Ewing v. Brady, 48 Mo. 560; Kurlbaum v. Roepke, 27 Mo. 161; Martin v. Martin, 27 Mo. 227, 228; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 26 Mo. 235. And even under the old practice, such omission was but error.-......