Mentzing v. Pacific R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1876 |
| Citation | 64 Mo. 25 |
| Parties | JOHN M. MENTZING, Respondent, v. PACIFIC R. R. CO., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Special Law and Equity Court.
A bill of exceptions in this case, it appears, was signed and filed but in vacation and without consent of respondent.
Ewing, Smith & Pope, for Appellant.
W. E. Sheffield, for Respondent, cited: Blankenship vs. North Mo. R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 376; Ellis vs. Andrews, 25 Mo. 327; Wilcoxson vs. McBride, 23 Mo. 404; Diepenbrock vs. Shaw, 21 Mo. 122; Sutter vs. Street, 21 Mo. 157; State vs. McO'Blenis, 21 Mo. 272.
Action for damages for killing an ox and judgment for $60, the amount claimed.
It is impossible for us to review the alleged error of the circuit court in affirming the judgment of the justice since there is no bill of exceptions here. We have in numerous instances held, that unless upon consent of parties made matter of record, this court could not grant permission to file a bill of exceptions in vacation. In the present instance such consent does not appear and in conformity to previous rulings, (Blankenship vs. N. M. R. R. Co., 40 Mo. 376; West vs. Fowler, 55 Mo. 300; West vs. Fowler, 59 Mo. 40; Ellis vs. Andrews, 25 Mo. 327; Pomeroy vs. Selmes, 8 Mo. 521; Consant vs. Sidell, 7 Mo. 250; Hassinger vs. Pye, 10 Mo. 156; Diepenbrock vs. Shaw, 21 Mo. 122; Sutter vs. Street, Id. 157; State vs. McO'Blenis, Id. 272; Fanor vs. Finney, Id. 569; Ruble vs. Thomasson, 20 Mo. 263; Wilcoxson vs. McBride, 23 Mo. 404), inasmuch as no error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed; all the judges concur, except Judge Hough not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ryan
...This relaxation of the rule, and its precise limits, are accurately set forth in State v. McO'Blenis, 21 Mo. 272, and in Mentzing v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 25. Other cases speak of consent of parties entered of record to the filing of a bill of exceptions, but in a vague way. What they eviden......
-
Musick v. The Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Company
...115 Mo. 470; State v. Harben, 105 Mo. 603; State v. Berry, 103 Mo. 367; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570; State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559; Mentzing v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 25. (2) If it competent for this court on this appeal to look into the proceedings of the circuit court ending in the judgment here co......
-
The State v. Ryan
...vacation. This relaxation of the rule and its precise limits are accurately set forth in State v. McO'Blenis, 21 Mo. 272, and in Mentzing v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 25. Other cases of consent of parties entered of record to the filing of a bill of exceptions, but in a vague way; what they evidentl......
-
Miller v. St. Louis R.R. Co.
...was presented out of time, and was improperly allowed.--Wag. Stat. 1043, secs. 27, 28; Smith v. Pollock, 58 Mo. 161; Mentsing v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 25; Riddlesberger v. McDaniel, 38 Mo. 138; Howes v. Holmes, 2 Mo. App. 81; Hoffelman v. Frank, 52 Mo. 542; Dale v. Patterson, 63 Mo. 98; Wrig......