Rutherford v. Wim
| Decision Date | 30 April 1831 |
| Parties | RUTHERFORD v. WIM. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT.
Rutherford brought an action before a justice of the peace against Wim, for trespasses alleged to have been committed on land in Rutherford's possession, and had judgment. This judgment was reversed in the Circuit Court, and to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court this writ of error was sued out. The facts of the case are as follows: On the 23d day of October, 1830, the jury found a verdict for Rutherford before the justice of the peace; on the 9th day of November then next, the justice entered up judgment, and on the tenth day of the same month Wim appealed to the Circuit Court. The plaintiff in error moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeal, because it was not taken within ten days after the rendering of the judgment; he also moved the court to allow a certiorari to the justice, to send up a full transcript of his docket, a diminution being alleged; both of which motions were overruled, and to the opinion of the court exceptions were taken. The plaintiff in error also excepted to the opinion of the court in some instructions given to the jury, on the motion of the defendant in error. But to dispose of this cause it will not be necessary to notice any thing, except the decision of the Circuit Court on the motion to dismiss the appeal. On the one side it is contended that the day on which the verdict of the jury is found, is the day on which judgment must be considered to be given, even though it be not entered up for several days after, and the justice having no discretion, his neglect ought not to injure the plaintiff. On the other side it is said, that till judgment is entered, there is nothing to be appealed from, and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to cause his judgment to be entered. The statute provides that upon the return of a verdict the justice shall give judgment thereon, with costs, and the appeal shall be taken within ten days after. The court is inclined to give the effect of a judgment to the verdict, so soon as it is entered on the justice's docket(a) Justices of the peace have no such control over verdicts as judges of the courts of record have; nor is it proper that they should have. After the entry of the verdict on the docket, they have no discretion to exercise; and the neglect to make the entry of the words “judgment for plaintiff” on the docket, could not injure the defendant. He knew that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belk v. Hamilton
... ... forms, it is enough if their records clearly show the purport ... of their judicial acts. Such records should receive a fair ... and reasonable interpretation, and effect be accorded to ... their manifest meaning. Satterly v. Winne (1886), ... 101 N.Y. 218, 4 N.E. 185; Rutherford v. Wim (1831), ... 3 Mo. 14 ... 4 ... Defendant has chiefly relied on Colville v. Judy ... (1881), 73 Mo. 651, to sustain the ruling on the circuit ... ...
-
Belk v. Hamilton
...interpretation, and effect be accorded to their manifest meaning. Satterly v. Winne (1886) 101 N. Y. 218, 4 N. E. 185; Rutherford v. Wim (1831) 3 Mo. 14. 4. Defendant has chiefly relied on Colville v. Judy (1881) 73 Mo. 651, to sustain the ruling on the circuit. It is sufficient to say that......
-
Franse v. Owens
...force and effect of one to the confession so soon as the same is entered on the docket of the justice. (Davis v. Wood, 7 Mo. 162; Rutherford v. Winn, 3 Mo. 14; Chamberlain & Churchill v. Mammoth Mining Co. 20 Mo. 96.) The justice had the statutory right to empower a person, other than the c......
-
Simonds v. Oliver
...found for plaintiff, and judgment was accordingly given for him. Defendant appealed to this court. Garesché and Farish, for appellant, cited 3 Mo. 14; 19 Mo. 102; 1 Mo. 473. A. M. Gardner, for respondent. LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. There is no error in the record, a......