Matlock v. Williams
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 105 |
| Parties | GEORGE MATLOCK, Appellant, v. MARCUS WILLIAMS et al. Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court.
Ewing & Smith, and John Cosgrove, with McMillen Bros., for Appellant.
Draffen & Williams, for Respondents.
Suit to enforce mechanic's lien. The trial before the court resulted in a general judgment against the contractor, and a judgment in favor of the other defendants. The answers of the defendants were separate ones, and both denied the chief allegations of the petition, and among them that the lien was filed, etc., within the requisite statutory period. The plaintiff filed his replies to these answers. But the account which was filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court, showing the date of its filing, and proper verification, is not to be found incorporated in the bill of exceptions, nor even among the other papers contained in the transcript.
It is true that the parties have stipulated that “the plaintiff read in evidence his mechanic's lien;” but as to the contents and component parts of that paper, the date of its filing, its compliance with the requisitions of the statute, we are left to conjecture. But even if there were no fault to find in this respect there are objections equally fatal as to the giving of the declaration of law No. 2, on the part of the defendants; for the amended motion for a new trial, only calls the attention of the court below to declarations Nos. 1, 3 and 5, given at the instance of defendants.
No opportunity was therefore afforded the trial court to correct any error which it might have committed in giving the declaration complained of; and it is upon this declaration that plaintiff chiefly relies for a reversal. But it is quite needless to inquire as to any of the declarations which were given on behalf of defendants, as plaintiff had judgment against the contractor, and was entitled to none against the owners, unless he had secured his lien within the time and manner provided by law. In the absence of anything in the record showing this, it certainly will not be presumed.
Judgment affirmed; Judge Vories absent, the other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson
...in the opinion, this can only be done by the bill itself, since what is done at the trial can only thus be known and preserved. Matlock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; Campbell v. Allen, 61 Mo. 582. It may be conceded that the bill of exceptions, in the transcript now before us, sufficiently ident......
-
Baker v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co.
...to the action of the lower court which were not made the basis of a motion for a new trial. Cowen v. Railroad Co., 48 Mo. 556; Matlock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; Haynes v. Town of Trenton, 108 Mo. 123, 18 S. W. 1003; Gordon v. Gordon, 13 Mo. 215; Broughton v. Brand, 94 Mo. 169, 7 S. W. 119, —......
-
Baker v. The Kansas City, fort Scott & Memphis v. Company
... ... locomotive.'" ... In the ... more recent case of Myers v. Railroad , 24 A. 747, ... Williams, J., said: "The rule is now well settled in ... this state that one approaching a railroad crossing upon a ... public highway must stop, look and ... were not made the basis of a motion for a new trial ... Cowen v. Railroad , 48 Mo. 556; Matlock v ... Williams , 59 Mo. 105; Haynes v. Trenton , 108 ... Mo. 123, 18 S.W. 1003; Gordon v. Gordon , 13 Mo. 215; ... Broughton v. Brand , 94 Mo ... ...
-
Whitmore v. Supreme Lodge Knights & Ladies of Honor
...of the trial court, in the motion for new trial, the appellate court will disregard the complaint. State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 295; Matlock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; State Degonia, 69 Mo. 490. (3) Courts will enforce all reasonable laws and rules established by benevolent societies for their gu......