Rhodes v. White
| Decision Date | 31 July 1848 |
| Citation | 11 Mo. 623 |
| Parties | RHODES v. WHITE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR TO SCHUYLER CIRCUIT COURT.
STRINGFELLOW, for Plaintiff. The only question is whether the note being given for a sale made in violation of law is valid. To peddle clocks is prohibited by law unless a license be first granted. This is clearly a case in which the consideration of the contract is malum prohibitum. 7 Mo. R. 585.
John C. White brought an action against Henry Rhodes before a justice of the peace in Schuyler county on a promissory note, and having obtained judgment, Rhodes appealed to the Circuit Court, where judgment being again given against him, he has brought the case to this court by writ of error.
By the bill of exceptions in the case, we are informed, that after the plaintiff had read the note sued upon, the defendant offered evidence to show that the note was given for the purchase of a clock, and that the vendor, White, had not at the time of the sale a license authorizing him to peddle or sell clocks, which evidence the court rejected, and the defendant excepted; and there being no other evidence in the cause, the court, sitting as a jury, found for the plaintiff, and entered judgment. No motion was made for a new trial.
It has repeatedly been held by this court, that a motion for a new trial must be made, thereby affording the Circuit Court an opportunity, if an error has been committed by that court, in the course of a trial, upon a more mature consideration, to correct the same, by granting to the party complaining a new trial. It is due to the interest of parties litigant, that such errors should be corrected in the court below, and not subject them to the delay and cost attendant upon bringing the case to this court. See the case of Swearingen, Samuel & Davis v. Knox, Adm'r, &c., 10 Mo. R. 31, and the cases there cited.(a) The judgment is affirmed.
(a). This applies to all matters dehors the record--see note ante, p. 368; Downing v. Still 43 Mo. R. at p. 318.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis v. Turner, 30742.
... ... Brun v. Dumey, 2 Mo. 125; Polk v. State, 4 Mo. 544; Rhodes v. White, 11 Mo. 623; Putnam v. Railroad Co., 22 Mo. App. 580. (2) The appellant did not specifically except to the report of the commissions upon ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Turner
... ... where not complained of in the motion for a new trial ... Brun v. Dumey, 2 Mo. 125; Polk v. State, 4 ... Mo. 544; Rhodes v. White, 11 Mo. 623; Putnam v ... Railroad Co., 22 Mo.App. 580. (2) The appellant did not ... specifically except to the report of the ... ...
-
Richmond's Adm'x v. Wardlaw
...a motion for a new trial, this court will not disturb a judgment rendered upon a verdict. The same point was again decided in Rhodes v. White (11 Mo. 623), and the court say, “It has been repeatedly decided by this court that a motion for a new trial must be made, thereby affording the Circ......
-
Gray v. Heslep
... ... (Benoist v. Powell, 7 Mo. 224; Higgins v. Breen, 9 Mo. 497; Watson v. Pierce, 11 Mo. 358; Rhodes v. White, 11 Mo. 623, with reasons.)A motion is no part of the record. (U. S. v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 457; Christy v. Myers, 21 Mo. 112; London v. King, 22 ... ...