Kerner ex rel. Kerner v. Conkle

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kerner ex rel. Kerner v. Conkle

78 Mo. App. 64, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 11

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 Mo. App. 64 (Kerner ex rel. Kerner v. Conkle) 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

Kerner ex rel. Kerner v. Conkle, 78 Mo. App. 64, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 11 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, J.

This is an action for damages for assault and battery. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $100. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled on January 7, 1896. Defendant did not except to this ruling, but on the third of April, 1897, [67]*67filed a second motion to set aside the judgment and for new trial. This motion was subsequently overruled, exceptions taken, and an appeal by defendant to this court. It is undisputed that the motion for new trial, to the overruling of which defendant excepted, was not filed within the time prescribed by statute; Eevised Statutes 1889, section 2243; hence the record proper is alone before us for review, and as that discloses no error on its face, the judgment herein is affirmed.

All concur.

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

BOND, J.

This is an action for damages for assault and battery. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $100. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled on January 7, 1896. Defendant did not except to this ruling, but on the third of April, 1897, [67]*67filed a second motion to set aside the judgment and for new trial. This motion was subsequently overruled, exceptions taken, and an appeal by defendant to this court. It is undisputed that the motion for new trial, to the overruling of which defendant excepted, was not filed within the time prescribed by statute; Eevised Statutes 1889, section 2243; hence the record proper is alone before us for review, and as that discloses no error on its face, the judgment herein is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Mo. App. 64, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerner-ex-rel-kerner-v-conkle-moctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack