Newton v. Miller
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 298 |
| Parties | JOB NEWTON, Respondent, v. J. N. MILLER AND D. C. SPENCER, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.
J. P. Ellis, for appellants.
Sherwood & Young, for respondent.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for services rendered as agent in superintending the construction of a building in Springfield, and for moneys expended by him in the course of his agency, and for money paid an architect for plans and specifications for the building. The defendants by their answer deny all the allegations of plaintiff's petition.
The case was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, and upon the trial, evidence was given conducing to show the agency, amounts expended, etc. Declarations of law were asked on both sides, and the case seems to have been fairly presented in the declarations given by the court. The court found the issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment in his favor.
It is objected here that the verdict is not responsive to the petition. But no motion was made in arrest of judgment, and the point was not brought to the attention of the court. We can notice only such points as were passed on by the court below. In this case, however, we see nothing in the objection. The petition, although setting out several distinct items and claiming judgment for each, was founded on matters growing out of the same alleged agency, and may be treated as one count. We see nothing in the record to warrant us in disturbing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Judge Bliss concurs. Judge Wagner absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lilly v. Menke
...judgment if going to the pleadings." See remarks as to reasons "on the record," in Floersh v. Bank (1847), 10 Mo. 515 at 517; Newton v. Miller (1872), 49 Mo. 298; Hotel v. Sigement (1873), 53 Mo. 176. The case of Warner v. Morin, above cited, was questioned in State to use v. Matson (1866),......
-
City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
...relation to proceedings during the trial, or in arrest of judgment if going to the pleadings." [To the same general effect are Newton v. Miller (1872), 49 Mo. 298; K. C. Co. v. Sigement (1873), 53 Mo. 176; Brown v. Home Savings Bank (1877), 5 Mo.App. 1; Ring v. Chas. Vogel Paint & Glass Co.......
-
Davis v. Hess
... ... Cramer, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 490. (6) ... Appellant cannot try his case on one theory in the court ... below and on a different one here. Newton v. Miller, ... 49 Mo. 298; Davis v. Brown, 67 Mo. 313; ... Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575; Noble v ... Blunt, 77 Mo. 241; Walker v. Owen, 79 Mo ... ...
-
Gray v.St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co.
...Adams on Eject., side p. 391; Goodtitle v. Toombs, 3 Wils. 118, 121; Jones v. Manly, 58 Mo. 559, 563; 1 R. S. 1879, § 3557; Newton v. Miller, 49 Mo. 298; Bolinger v. Carter, decided at Oct. term 1883, not reported, and other cases cited in argument; Thurston v. St. Joseph, 40 Mo. 512; Hanni......