National Bond & Inv. Co. v. Hodiamont Bank

• Decision Date: 24 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 21187.,21187.
• Citation: 29 S.W.2d 205
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: NATIONAL BOND & INV. CO. v. HODIAMONT BANK.

29 S.W.2d 205

NATIONAL BOND & INV. CO. v. HODIAMONT BANK.

No. 21187.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 24, 1930.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Jerry Mulloy, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the National Bond & Investment Company against the Hodiamont Bank. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

W. W. Sleater, Jr., and L. L. Bornschein, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Stout & Spencer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action in replevin for the recovery of the possession of one Essex coupé alleged to be of the value of $750. Upon the filing of the petition an order of delivery was made, but the order was never executed. The cause was tried before the court, without a jury. At the close of all the evidence in the case the court gave a declaration of law in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and gave judgment for defendant accordingly. Plaintiff appeals. The action of the court in giving the declaration of law in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence is the sole ground of error assigned here. Inasmuch as this assignment was not preserved in the motion for a new trial, it will not be necessary to set out the facts in detail. It will suffice to say that there was evidence tending to show a state of facts to warrant the judgment given. The only grounds for a new trial set forth in the motion are (1) that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, (2) that the verdict is against the law, (3) that the verdict is against the evidence, (4) that the verdict is against the law and the evidence, (5) that the verdict is against the law as applied to the evidence, (6) that the court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial evidence offered by defendant, (7) that the court erred in refusing to admit competent, material, and relevant evidence offered by the plaintiff, and (8) that the verdict is for the wrong party. It is manifest that there is no assignment in this motion sufficient to preserve for review here the action of the court in giving the declaration of law in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. Bond v. Williams, 279 Mo. 215, loc. cit. 227, 214 S. W. 202, 16 A. L. R. 755; Raifelsen v. Young, 183 Mo. App. 508, 167 S. W. 648.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of SUTTON, C., is adopted as the opinion of the...