Walter v. Cathcart
| Decision Date | 31 March 1853 |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 256 |
| Parties | WALTER, Defendant in Error, v. CATHCART, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The supreme court presumes that the proceedings below are correct, unless the contrary is shown by the record.
2. A judgment will not be reversed for the giving of instructions abstractly erroneous, unless they affected the verdict. If the evidence is not preserved, so that their bearing can be seen the judgment will be affirmed.
3. The rule laid down in Cathcart v. Walter, 14 Mo. as to the measure of damages in forcible entry and detainer, doubted.
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
Leslie & Barrets, for appellant.
H. N. Hart, for respondent.
This was a proceeding in forcible entry and detainer, taken to the Circuit Court by certiorari. None of the evidence given on the part of the plaintiff, Walter is preserved in the record. The only piece of evidence offered by the defendant was an assignment of some leasehold premises to him by G. A. Phegley, showing a title to the tenements about which the suit was brought. This was excluded, to which an exception was taken. The record presents nothing else but the instructions given and refused. The judgment of the law is, that the proceedings below are correct, unless it be shown that they are erroneous. The evidence not being preserved, we cannot say whether the paper offered was properly excluded or not; the presumption, then, being in favor of the judgment, it must stand.
2. The propriety of the instruction cannot be examined, as the evidence, is not saved on which they were based. The instructions may have been erroneous, abstractly considered, yet if they did not affect the verdict, a judgment will not, for that cause, be reversed.
3. The judgment must be affirmed, but in doing this, we do not wish to be understood as sanctioning the measure of damages which was laid down as law when this cause was formerly here. (14 Mo.)
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flesh v. Lindsay
...has been done, though errors were committed which did not materially affect the merits, the court will not disturb the verdict. Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; Smith Culligan, 74 Mo. 388; Drain v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 582; Mauerman v. Railroad, 41 Mo.App. 328. Moreover, the statutes make the ab......
-
Newell v. St. Louis Bolt & Iron Co.
...28 Mo. 491; Morris v. Morris, 28 Mo. 115; Rose v. Spies, 44 Mo. 20; Tate v. Railway Co., 64 Mo. 149; Bowling v. Hax, 55 Mo. 446; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; The State v. Brown, 64 Mo. 367; Finney v. Allen, 7 Mo. 419; Swearingen v. Orme, 8 Mo. 707; Patterson v. McClanahan, 13 Mo. 507; Ca......
-
Blanchard v. Wolff
...Underwood, 47 Mo. 185; Coleman v. McKnight, 4 Mo. 236; Henri v. Grand Lodge, 59 Mo. 581; Routsong v. Pacific R. R.Co. 54 Mo. 236; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; Thurman v. Jones, 48 Mo. 235; Wordmanser Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 179; St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 42 Mo. 467; Jones v. Fuller, 38 Mo.......
-
Blanchard v. Wolff
...47 Mo. 185; Coleman v. McKnight, 4 Mo. 236; Henri v. Grand Lodge, 59 Mo. 581; Routsong v. Pacific R. R. Co. 54 Mo. 236; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256; Thurman v. Jones, 48 Mo. 235; Wordmanser v. Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 179; St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 42 Mo. 467; Jones v. Fuller, 38 Mo. 363. G......