Matlock v. King

23 Mo. 400
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 Mo. 400 (Matlock v. King) 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
Matlock v. King, 23 Mo. 400 (Mo. 1856).

Opinion

Rylakd, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff below recovered a judgment against the defendant before a justice of the peaee. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court, the plaintiff (appellee) obtained a rule on the justice to perfect the transcript, which the justice did by entering a formal judgment on the verdict. The appellant, the defendant below, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit, as appears by the bill of exceptions. This motion was sustained and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here.

It was error for the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. When the appeal was taken, and the justice had filed his transcript with the clerk, it was the duty of the court to proceed to hear, try and determine the cause anew, without'regarding any error, defect or other imperfection in the proceedings of the justice. (R. C. 1845, p. 670.) The Circuit Court should have overruled the appellant’s motion, and proceeded to try the case over again on the merits. On appeals, the Circuit Court does not sit to find out the errors and irregularities of the proceedings before the justices of the peace, but to disregard all errors and [401]*401imperfections, and try the cause anew. The same cause must be again tried, but tried on the merits.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to the court below to proceed to try the cause on the merits ;

the other judges concur.

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

Related

Hughes v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co.
98 N.E. 317 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Blunt v. A. & P. R. R.
55 Mo. 157 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Barnum v. Fitzpatrick
11 Wis. 81 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Mo. 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matlock-v-king-mo-1856.