Woodrow v. Younger
| Citation | 61 Mo. 395 |
| Parties | E. WOODROW, Respondent, v. W. H. H. YOUNGER, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court.
Jas. F. Hardin, with J. E. Ellis, for Appellant.
The right to change of venue and its requirements are purely statutory, and defendant has complied in all respects with them.
This case is not that of ex parte Cox. (10 Mo., 743.) In case of an ordinary verdict, the evidence is in the breast of the court, and on change of venue, it must all be re-heard. But that taken before the referee is in writing, and alike open and accessible in any court, and may be passed on as easily by one court as by another.
This reference was not by consent, but involved the examination of a long account. The statute (Wagn. Stat., 1041, § 18) makes such reference for the information of the court only. And this does not preclude either party from other rights conferred by the statute.
Bray & Cravens, with F. S. Hefferman, for Respondent.
The application for change of venue, after finding and report of referee, was properly overruled. See Ex parte Cox, (10 Mo., 742) in which case the learned judge says: “There can be no doubt, however, that it never was contemplated that the progress of a suit could be interrupted at any period by such applications.”
This was a suit against the curator of an estate, finally disposed of in the circuit court of Greene county. In September, 1870, the circuit court of Greene county, referred the matter to a referee, who at the May term, 1871, reported the evidence and his conclusion on it. After this report was filed and exceptions to it were made, but before the court gave any opinion on it, the defendant filed his application for a change of venue, on the ground that the judge was prejudiced, and was under the influence of the opposite party.
The application was denied, and its refusal constitutes the only point in the case. In Ex parte Cox, (10 Mo., 742) this court issued a mandamus upon a court, which allowed a change of venue after verdict, and it is conceded that that decision must control the present case, unless there is a material distinction between the verdict of a jury and the report of a referee, so far as the right to a change of venue is concerned; but in Franz vs. Dietrick, (49 Mo., 95) it was held that the report of a referee, in stating an account, is equivalent to a special verdict. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
...1173, sec. 106; Black on Judgments (2 Ed.) 142. The report of a referee has been held to be equivalent to a special verdict. Woodrow v. Younger, 61 Mo. 395; Turley v. Barnes, 67 Mo.App. 237; Lackland Renshaw, 256 Mo. 152. The report of the commissioners in this case also occupies the positi......
-
State ex rel. Kimbrell v. People's Ice, Storage & Fuel Co.
...it is not) that the general rule that a case cannot be cut in two by a change of venue after the filing of a referee's report (Woodrow v. Younger, 61 Mo. 395) inapplicable in view of the peculiar facts of this case. 4. Despite the fact that the circuit judge set aside the referee's report a......
-
Meissner v. Standard Ry. Equipment Co.
...have been approved and confirmed by the circuit court, they will not be disturbed. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Railroad, 73 Mo. 389; Woodrow v. Younger, 61 Mo. 395; Lingenfelder Brewing Co., 103 Mo. 578; Howard County v. Baker, 119 Mo. 407; Berthold v. O'Hara, 121 Mo. 97; Tufts v. Latshaw, 172 Mo.......
-
State ex rel. Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Bruce
...Tomlinson, 245 Mo. 1, 149 S.W. 454; Ex parte Cox, 10 Mo. 742. This change of venue cannot be allowed after report of a referee. Woodrow v. Younger, 61 Mo. 395. Or scire facias to receive judgment. Sutton v. Cole, 155 Mo. 206. (2) This condemnation is one continuous proceeding. (a) It is com......