State v. Buckner
Decision Date | 18 March 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 12967.,12967. |
Citation | 203 S.W. 242 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. AIKEN v. BUCKNER. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Walsh & Aylward, of Kansas City, for appellant. Sebree, Conrad Sr Wendorff, of Kansas City, for respondent.
Relator brought his action for damages against the Sydney Steel Scraper Company and Samuel B. Strother, administrator of the estate of Tomlinson, deceased. The respondent is judge of the circuit court for Jackson county, and the trial of the cause was had before him as such court, with the aid of a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff the court gave a peremptory instruction to the jury to find a verdict for the defendant Sydney Steel Scraper Company, and such verdict was thereupon returned. The case was dismissed by this relator as to Strother. Relator as plaintiff in that case appealed to this court, and we held the peremptory instruction to be error and reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the cause for trial. The present controversy has arisen over the order of time at which relator dismissed his case as to Strother; he insists that he took that action before the peremptory instruction was given and verdict returned, while respondent claims that the dismissal was after the verdict was returned. The judgment entered on the record, as well as the clerk's minutes, support relator. But the defendant Sydney Steel Scraper Company, as well as respondents, claimed that the entry of the judgment of dismissal in the record as having been rendered prior to the instruction and verdict was an error of the clerk, and that respondent's entries in his docket show the dismissal was subsequent to the instructions and verdict. So the defendant Sydney Steel Scraper Company after the judgment of reversal rendered in this court and after the mandate from this court had been issued and had been received in the circuit court, filed a motion in the circuit court asking for an order nunc pro tune changing or transposing the judgments, as shown in the record, so that the judgment of dismissal as to Strother would appear to have been rendered after the verdict and judgment in favor of the Sydney Steel Scraper Company.
The judgment entered upon the record by the clerk of a court of record is presumed to be the judgment rendered by the court, and such presumption cannot be qualified by the recollection of the judge or witnesses. It can only be overcome by some proper paper in the cause or by some record, or quasi record, such as the clerk's minute book, or entries in the judge's docket. M., K. & B. Ry. v. Holschlag, 144 Mo. 253, 257, 45 S. W. 1101, 66 Am. St. Rep. 417; Belkin v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. 643, 652; Burns v. Sullivan, 90 Mo. App. 1, 4; Bohm Bros. v. Stivers, 75 Mo. App. 291. And mere silence of the judge's docket or of the clerk's minutes cannot control proper affirmative recitations in the judgment entered on the record. Monk v. Railroad, 166 Mo. App. 692, 707, 708, 150 S. W. 1083, 1087.
We will apply these settled rules of law to the facts as shown by the record in the cause as it stood when it was proposed to make the nunc pro tune order. The clerk's minutes are as follows:
The judgment entered at large in the record reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. Spotts
...Young v. Young, 165 Mo. 624; Williams v. Sands, 187 S.W. 1188; In re Fulsome's Est., 193 S.W. l.c. 620; State ex rel. Aiken v. Buckner, 203 S.W. 242.]" (Italics The authorities are again reviewed and the same conclusions reached by this court in Clancy v. Luyties Realty Co., 321 Mo. 282, 10......
- State ex rel. and to Use of Conran v. Duncan
-
Campbell v. Spotts
... ... (a) Cause ... was pending and plaintiffs could not dismiss after case had ... been submitted to the court. Sec. 960, R. S. 1929; State ... ex rel. v. McQuillen, 246 Mo. 517; Barron v. Store ... Co., 292 Mo. 195; Rutledge v. Dent, 308 Mo ... 558; Adams v. Cary, 226 S.W ... Young, 165 ... Mo. 624; Williams v. Sands, 187 S.W. 1188; In re ... Fulsome's Est., 193 S.W. l. c. 620; State ex rel ... Aiken v. Buckner, 203 S.W. 242.]" (Italics ours.) ... The ... authorities are again reviewed and the same conclusions ... reached by this court ... ...
-
State ex rel. Conran v. Duncan
...by the record or by the law, and which he has no rightful judicial power to do, the writ of prohibition may be invoked. State ex rel. v. Brickner, 203 S.W. 242. (2) The May Term of the New Madrid County Circuit Court met the third Monday in May, 1932; the undenied allegations in the petitio......