Small v. Hempstead

Decision Date31 May 1842
Citation7 Mo. 373
PartiesSMALL, ADM'R OF GILLEY, DECEASED, v. HEMPSTEAD.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

ERROR TO THE ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

GEYER, for Plaintiff.

SPALDING, for Defendant.

SCOTT, J.

On the 10th day of August, 1825, Charles S. Hempstead obtained judgment against John B. Gilley, by proceedings on an attachment. Afterwards, in July, 1837, David Small, administrator of John B. Gilley, deceased, filed his motion to set aside the judgment, for irregularity apparent on the face of the proceedings. This motion was overruled, and the cause is brought here by writ of error. No exception was taken and preserved to the judgment of the court in overruling the motion. This court will presume the judgment of the inferior court to be correct, unless it is shown to be otherwise. The appearance of the defendant in error to the motion to set aside the judgment for irregularity was no admission of the representative character of the appellant. As the objections to the motion were made on terms, and were not required to be entered of record, it cannot be discovered on what ground the motion was overruled. For aught that appears, it may have been done because the right of the appellant to make it was not established.(a) Writ dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Broughton v. Brand
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1888
    ...Welsh v. St. Louis, 73 Mo. 73; Anderson v. Shockley, 82 Mo. 255; Stewart v. Small, 5 Mo. 525; Vaughn v. Montgomery, 5 Mo. 529; Small v. Hempstead, 7 Mo. 373; Riney Vanlandingham, 9 Mo. 817; State v. Dorman, 11 Mo. 363; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; State v. Vaughn, 26 Mo. 29; State v. Rog......
  • Welsh v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1880
    ...made in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the lower court. Stewart v. Small, 5 Mo. 525; Vaughn v. Montgomery, 5 Mo. 529; Small v. Hempstead, 7 Mo. 373; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; State v. Rogers, 36 Mo. 138. But while this presumption is indulged in favorable to the action of t......
  • Gilstrap v. Felts
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1872
    ...Mo. 403; Collins v. Bowmer, 2 Mo. 195; Stewart v. Small, 5 Mo. 525; Vaughn v. Montgomery, id. 529; Dodson v. Johnson, 6 Mo. 599; Small v. Hempstead, 7 Mo. 373; Bouv. Law Dic. 726.)BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was for damages for seizing and converting personal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT