Calvert v. City of Alexandria

Supreme Court of Missouri

Calvert v. City of Alexandria

33 Mo. 149

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedOctober 15, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Mo. 149 (Calvert v. City of Alexandria) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calvert v. City of Alexandria, 33 Mo. 149 (Mo. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Bay, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the trial of this cause three instructions were asked by defendant, and refused by the court, and such refusal is the main reason assigned in the motion for a new trial. It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that any exception was taken to the opinion of the court in refusing the instructions asked.

The exception should be taken at the time the instruction is given or refused, and, if not so taken, this court will not pass upon the action of the court below. In reference thereto, in Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367, it was held that a party could not, in a motion for a new trial, avail himself of an erroneous instruction unobjected to at the time given.

The judgment will be affirmed,

Judge Bates concurring. Judge Dryden not sitting, by reason of having been of counsel in the court below.

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

Bay, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the trial of this cause three instructions were asked by defendant, and refused by the court, and such refusal is the main reason assigned in the motion for a new trial. It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that any exception was taken to the opinion of the court in refusing the instructions asked.

The exception should be taken at the time the instruction is given or refused, and, if not so taken, this court will not pass upon the action of the court below. In reference thereto, in Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367, it was held that a party could not, in a motion for a new trial, avail himself of an erroneous instruction unobjected to at the time given.

The judgment will be affirmed,

Judge Bates concurring. Judge Dryden not sitting, by reason of having been of counsel in the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Mo. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvert-v-city-of-alexandria-mo-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack