Scowden v. Scowden
| Decision Date | 29 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7503,7503 |
| Citation | 298 S.W.2d 484 |
| Parties | Anna SCOWDEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cecil SCOWDEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Byron Kearby, Poplar Bluff, for defendant-appellant.
Roy W. McGhee, Roy W. McGhee, Jr., Greenville, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from judgment in a divorce case. Appellant's complete points and authorities are as follows:
'Where alimony is adjudged the court shall make orders touching the alimony and maintenance for the wife as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case shall be reasonable.
'Missouri Statutes Annotated 1949, Section 452.070.
'After giving consideration to all the relevant circumstances in this case the award of the court of alimony in gross of $6,500.00 is grossly excessive.
'Carr v. Carr [Mo.], 232 S.W.2d 488.
'Allowance of alimony is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into consideration, however, the age, health and financial circumstances of the parties.
The first and third paragraphs are mere statements in the abstract and present nothing for review. See Beeler v. Board of Adjustment of City of Joplin, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 481. This leaves us with the sole assignment that the amount of alimony is grossly excessive.
We are of the opinion that we cannot consider this assignment, because such claim of error was not preserved in the motion for new trial. The only reference to alimony which we find in such motion is:
On civil appeals (with certain exceptions not here concerned) no claim of error can be considered unless it was presented to or expressly decided by the trial court. Sec. 512.160, R.S.Mo. 1949, V.A.M.S. This applies to claims of error in regard to the amount awarded. Klaber v. O'Malley, Mo.Sup., 90 S.W.2d 396, 401; Tynes v. Terrill, Mo.App., 19 S.W.2d 505, 507; Campbell v. Polk, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 719, 720. Such claim of error must be set forth in a motion for new trial. If the question was presented during the progress of the trial and definite objections or requests were made, with a specific statement of the grounds or reasons therefor, then the motion for new trial need only call attention to the claim of error generally. But if the error claimed occurred after the case was submitted, then, in order to preserve the point for appeal, such error must be specifically set out. Supreme Court Rule 3.23, 42 V.A.M.S. This is true, although the motion for new trial, being a dual purpose instrument, may in some instances also serve to procure a favorable ruling of the trial court upon a claim of error which cannot be considered on appeal. Castorina v. Herrmann, 340 Mo. 1026, 104 S.W.2d 297, 300; Johnson v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 358 Mo. 253, 214 S.W.2d 5, 8.
Claims of error in regard to excessive damages must be clearly and expressly asserted. A general statement which does not distinctly designate the excessiveness of the award as the error relied upon will not serve to preserve such excessiveness as an assignment of error on appeal. 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, sec. 401, p. 132; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, Sec. 388, p. 838; Tynes v. Terrill, 19 S.W.2d 505, supra; Spickard v. Continental Casualty Co., 228 Mo.App., 233, 64 S.W.2d 734; Marsters v. Bray, Mo.Sup., 85 S.W.2d 479, 481; Bond v. Williams, 279 Mo. 215, 214 S.W. 202, 206, 16 A.L.R. 755; Sweet v. Maupin, 65 Mo. 65, 68.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gover v. Cleveland
...to or expressly decided by the trial chancellor. Section 512.160(1) RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; Supreme Court Rule 3.23; Scowden v. Scowden, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 484. Convinced, as we are, that plaintiffs' appellate theory of implied or common-law dedication comes as an afterhought, we must and do ......
-
Gosnell v. Gosnell
...to the trial court in a motion for new trial. Section 512.160, subd. 1; Sapp v. Key, Mo., 287 S.W.2d 775, 780(7); Scowden v. Scowden, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 484, 485(2). In the instant case, plaintiff filed no motion for new trial, and none of his appellate assignments of error directed to the......
-
Prentice v. Rowe
...review. Supreme Court Rule 1.08, subd. (a)(3) and (d), 42 V.A.M.S.; Turner v. Calvert, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 118, 120(2); Scowden v. Scowden, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 484, 485(1); Lewis v. Watkins, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 595, 597(3); Thrasher v. Allen Estate, Mo.App., 291 S.W.2d 630, 632; State ex rel. R......
-
Johnson v. Flex-O-Lite Mfg. Corp.
...132 S.W. 1059, 1062; Klaber v. O'Malley, Mo., 90 S.W.2d 396, 401; Welch v. Thompson, 357 Mo. 703, 210 S.W.2d 79, 86; Scowden v. Scowden, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 484, 485. Allegations of error with respect to excessive damages must be specifically set out in the motion for new trial, and an alle......