Harrington v. Minor

80 Mo. 270
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1883·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Ewing, C.

This is an appeal from the action of the circuit court of Jasper county in assessing damages upon an injunction bond. A jury being waived, the cause wac tried by the court.

No objection was made, on the trial by appellant, to the introduction of the testimony or the mode of assessing the damages, nor were there any instructions of law asked or given by the court. There is nothing in this case for this court to review.

The only way in which errors can be corrected, if the law is wrongfully decided, or a misapplication of the law to the facts is made by the lower court, is to ask declara[271] tions of law or instructions, in order tbat tbis court may see upon what theory the court below proceeded. There is no question of law presented or saved in a manner which this court can review. Easley v. Elliot, 43 Mo. 289 ; Weilandy v. Lemuel, 47 Mo. 322.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

Harrington v. Minor, 80 Mo. 270 (Mo. 1883).

80 Mo. 270 (Harrington v. Minor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meridian Lumber Co. v. Lowry Lumber Co.
229 S.W. 267 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1921)
Jordan v. Davis
72 S.W. 686 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Bozarth v. Lincoln Legion of Honor
67 S.W. 679 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Rice, Stix & Co. v. McClure & Harper
74 Mo. App. 383 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Riffe v. Wabash Railroad
72 Mo. App. 222 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Wenzell v. Erath
48 Mo. App. 476 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Claflin & Thayer v. Burkhart's Administrator
43 Mo. App. 226 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Tyler v. Larimore
19 Mo. App. 445 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Ford v. City of Cameron
19 Mo. App. 467 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Schlicker v. Gordon
19 Mo. App. 479 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)