Steinback v. Lisa's Ex'rs

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtM'GIRK
PartiesSTEINBACK v. LISA'S EXECUTORS.
Decision Date31 May 1822

1 Mo. 228

STEINBACK
v.
LISA'S EXECUTORS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1822.


[1 Mo. 229]

M'GIRK, C. J.

This was an action of debt, brought on a recognizance, and judgment against the plaintiff. None of the exceptions taken by the defendant's demurrer are sustainable and the judgment cannot be reversed for any thing thereby alleged. But when the court come to give judgment, after over ruling the demurrer, gave judgment for the amount of the recognizance to be discharged with a less sum. This is error. It is said, in Washington's Reports that the latter part of the judgment is only surplusage, and that it does not vitiate the judgment, which is well entered. The case in Washington's Reports, 1 Wash. 91, is not law in this State; neither is this like the cases in Burrow, where the judgment for debt was well, and the judgment for costs was wrong. These, then, were two distinct things, and two judgments; so one part might be reversed, and the other stand. But here, the defeasance part is a part of the judgment, and added without the authority of law.(a) Therefore, the whole must be reversed, with costs; and this court, proceeding to give such judgment as the court below ought to have given, order judgment to be entered for the whole amount of the recognizance.

--------

FOOTNOTES

(a). Cookrill v. Owen. 10 Mo. R. 2

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Stage Lines Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., No. 31028.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 12, 1933
    ...by reason of being indefinite, contradictory and stated in the alternative, 33 C.J. 1212; Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 400; Steinback v. Liso, 1 Mo. 228. (4) The decision of the commission on the merits was unreasonable and unlawful. State ex rel. Henson v. Brown, 31 S.W. (2d) [63 S.W.2d 89] COO......
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...(2d) 659. (10) The verdict is void and cannot be the basis of a judgment because it does not dispose of all the parties. Fenwick v. Logan, 1 Mo. 228; Ferguson v. Thacher, 79 Mo. 511; Miller v. Bryden, 34 Mo. App. 602 (1889); Nichols v. Lead & Zinc Co., 85 Mo. App. 584; Winkelman v. Maddox, ......
  • Braun v. Braun
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 30, 1899
    ...that a bill alleging two grounds for divorce (adultery and habitual drunkenness) is not for that reason multifarious. In Stokes v. Stokes, 1 Mo. 228, it was ruled that different causes of divorce may be joined in the same bill. In Morris v. Morris, 20 Ala. 168, it was said: "But, even if tw......
3 cases
  • State ex rel. Stage Lines Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., No. 31028.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 12, 1933
    ...by reason of being indefinite, contradictory and stated in the alternative, 33 C.J. 1212; Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 400; Steinback v. Liso, 1 Mo. 228. (4) The decision of the commission on the merits was unreasonable and unlawful. State ex rel. Henson v. Brown, 31 S.W. (2d) [63 S.W.2d 89] COO......
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...(2d) 659. (10) The verdict is void and cannot be the basis of a judgment because it does not dispose of all the parties. Fenwick v. Logan, 1 Mo. 228; Ferguson v. Thacher, 79 Mo. 511; Miller v. Bryden, 34 Mo. App. 602 (1889); Nichols v. Lead & Zinc Co., 85 Mo. App. 584; Winkelman v. Maddox, ......
  • Braun v. Braun
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 30, 1899
    ...that a bill alleging two grounds for divorce (adultery and habitual drunkenness) is not for that reason multifarious. In Stokes v. Stokes, 1 Mo. 228, it was ruled that different causes of divorce may be joined in the same bill. In Morris v. Morris, 20 Ala. 168, it was said: "But, even if tw......

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