Harrison v. Bartlett

51 Mo. 170
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 51 Mo. 170 (Harrison v. Bartlett) 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
Harrison v. Bartlett, 51 Mo. 170 (Mo. 1872).

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This case was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and afte hearing the evidence the verdict was for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon. From that judgment the defendant has appealed.

We have examined the whole record and find that no exceptions were saved to the rulings of the court, and no instructions were asked for or given. There is, therefore, no point of law preserved for this court to review.

At the end of the bill of exceptions we find it stated that to all the rulings, orders and judgment of the court the defendant excepted. But this court has always held that that was not sufficient and would not be noticed.

The exception must be saved to the specific ruling in the progress of the cause. When a question of law is sought to be raised on tbe trial, instructions should always be asked for so as to enable this court to see on what theory the court below decided.

As there is no question of law before us, tbe judgment must be affirmed.

Judge Adams concurs, Judge Bliss absent.

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

Related

Meyers v. Drake
24 S.W.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Kane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
157 S.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Moran v. Stewart
151 S.W. 439 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
McKee v. Jones Dry Goods Co.
132 S.W. 1191 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Zimmerman v. Chicago, Great Western Railway Co.
57 S.W. 718 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Wischmeyer v. Richardson
55 S.W. 74 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
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)
Bethune v. Cleveland, St. Louis & Kansas City Railway Co.
41 S.W. 213 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Hill v. Kingsland
33 S.W. 162 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Clark v. St. Louis Transfer Railway Co.
30 S.W. 121 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Downey v. Read
28 S.W. 860 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co.
27 S.W. 715 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Bray v. Kremp
21 S.W. 220 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
Ritzenger v. Hart
43 Mo. App. 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Weber v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.
100 Mo. 194 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
Griffith v. Hanks
91 Mo. 109 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Renney v. Williams
89 Mo. 139 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Thies v. Garbe
88 Mo. 146 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Miller v. Breneke
83 Mo. 163 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Mo. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-bartlett-mo-1872.