Burden v. Hornsby

50 Mo. 238
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided July 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Bliss, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought originally before a justice of the peace for killing plaintiff’s dog, and the damages were laid at $100. On motion to dismiss for excess of claim, the plaintiff amended his statement so as to make his claim but $50, and went to trial. This leave to amend is the first error complained of, but it was perfectly proper to make the correction. The defendant appealed, and upon trial the verdict was in his favor. The court, however, on the plaintiff’s motion, granted a new trial, and this is also claimed to be erroneous. It has long since been settled in Mis[239]*239souri that error will not lie for granting a new trial. The reasons are set forth in Helm v. Bassett, 9 Mo. 52, and the doctrine is affirmed in Keating v. Bradford, 25 Mo. 86. Upon the second trial the evidence was all submitted to the jury upon fair instructions, and the case should have stopped there. I find no error whatever in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Burden v. Hornsby, 50 Mo. 238 (Mo. 1872).

50 Mo. 238 (Burden v. Hornsby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Stacy
355 S.W.2d 377 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Cecil W. Armstrong v. United States
287 F.2d 577 (Court of Claims, 1961)
Gerhart v. City of St. Louis
270 S.W. 680 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Peter Hauptmann Tobacco Co. v. Unverferth
231 S.W. 628 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1921)
Brown v. Walker
1918 OK 456 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Lesan Advertising Co. v. Castleman
177 S.W. 597 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Trapp v. Mersman
167 S.W. 612 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Wells v. De Gouveia
143 S.W. 517 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)