Maplegreen Realty Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1911
• Citation: 141 S.W. 625,237 Mo. 365
• Parties: MAPLEGREEN REALTY CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRUST CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

141 S.W. 625

237 Mo. 365

MAPLEGREEN REALTY CO. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 27, 1911.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.

Action by the Maplegreen Realty Company against the Mississippi Valley Trust Company. From a judgment granting insufficient relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Kinealy & Kinealy, for appellant. E. M. Grossman, H. S. Priest, and Jones, Jones, Hocker & Davis, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

This is a cross-appeal by plaintiff in a case between the same parties (141 S. W. 621), just decided, and not yet officially reported. Quod vide. The pleadings, issues, and incidents are the same, with this exception: When the referee's report came in accompanied by the evidence, his finding was in favor of defendant on sundry items, viz., on the Williamson lot purchase, $360; on Dwyer's, $490; on Hobb's, $300; on Wards', $390; on Zorn's, $221; on Morris', $300; on Ketterer's, $55; on Zorn's, $62; on Anderson's, $100; on McDonald's, $294; on Berry's, $270; on Weigman's, $350; aggregating between $3,000 and $4,000.

Plaintiff filed 44 exceptions to the referee's report and findings, among others, the finding pertaining to the lot sales just mentioned. Its exceptions were overruled, and it saved an exception to that action of the chancellor. The report of the referee was then confirmed, and judgment followed accordingly. Thereat plaintiff filed its motion for a new trial wherein it called attention to its claim of error in overruling its exceptions to the referee's report. Its motion for a new trial was overruled, and on due steps this appeal followed. Its bill of exceptions contained the following recital: "The evidence taken before the referee is omitted, because the plaintiff, for the purposes of this appeal, accepts the referee's finding as to the facts."

The report of the referee is sufficiently indicated in the opinion in the former case. In that case we ruled we would not consider the merits of a case in equity, where the testimony is not brought up. There is no testimony here, and that fact precludes our rehearing of the merits. Maplegreen Realty Co., Respondent, v Mississippi Valley Trust Co., Appellant, 141 S. W. 621, handed down this delivery, and not yet officially reported; Pitts v. Pitts, 201 Mo. 356, 100 S. W. 1047; Guinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 173, 98 S. W. 478; Patterson v. Patterson, 200 Mo. 335, 98 S. W. 613; State ex rel. v. Jarrott, 183 Mo. 204, 81 S. W....