Harmon v. Iden

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harmon v. Iden

88 Mo. App. 314, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 52

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 Mo. App. 314 (Harmon v. Iden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harmon v. Iden, 88 Mo. App. 314, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

This is an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace. In the circuit court, where it was removed by appeal, the plaintiff had judgment and the defendant appealed. The plaintiff’s statement was to the effect that “she is lawfully entitled to the possession of the following described personal property,” etc. -It conforms exactly to the requirements of the statute — Revised Statutes 1899, section 3901 — and is, therefore, sufficient. Randal v. Buchanan, 61 Mo. App. 445. Had the action been brought in the circuit court instead of before a justice of the peace, the statement would no doubt have been insufficient in not alleging that the plaintiff had a general or special property in the chattels in dispute. R. S. 1899, see. 4463; Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 60 Mo. App. 219; Dillard v. McClure, 64 Mo. App. 488; Rosentreter v. Brady, 63 Mo. App. 398.

[316]*316The abstract does not disclose any record entry ordering the bill of exceptions to be filed, nor does it show that the bill was ever filed. Such bill was, therefore, no part of the record, and the matters of exception therein attempted to be preserved can not be noticed by us. Shoenberg v. Heyer (decided by us at the present term), and cases there cited.

No error appearing upon the face of the record proper, it results that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

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

SMITH, P. J.

This is an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace. In the circuit court, where it was removed by appeal, the plaintiff had judgment and the defendant appealed. The plaintiff’s statement was to the effect that “she is lawfully entitled to the possession of the following described personal property,” etc. -It conforms exactly to the requirements of the statute — Revised Statutes 1899, section 3901 — and is, therefore, sufficient. Randal v. Buchanan, 61 Mo. App. 445. Had the action been brought in the circuit court instead of before a justice of the peace, the statement would no doubt have been insufficient in not alleging that the plaintiff had a general or special property in the chattels in dispute. R. S. 1899, see. 4463; Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 60 Mo. App. 219; Dillard v. McClure, 64 Mo. App. 488; Rosentreter v. Brady, 63 Mo. App. 398.

[316]*316The abstract does not disclose any record entry ordering the bill of exceptions to be filed, nor does it show that the bill was ever filed. Such bill was, therefore, no part of the record, and the matters of exception therein attempted to be preserved can not be noticed by us. Shoenberg v. Heyer (decided by us at the present term), and cases there cited.

No error appearing upon the face of the record proper, it results that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Mo. App. 314, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-iden-moctapp-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack