McAntire v. Hewitt

Missouri Court of Appeals

McAntire v. Hewitt

75 Mo. App. 304, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 428

DecidedMay 2, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Mo. App. 304 (McAntire v. Hewitt) 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

McAntire v. Hewitt, 75 Mo. App. 304, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J. —

This action is based on an account for legal services rendered by plaintiffs for defendant. The verdict and judgment in the trial court were ■ for plaintiffs.

The only ground of complaint made here is that the eourt erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence; such evidence accompanying the motion in the shape of affidavits of different persons.

It is the practice as well as the duty of appellate courts to presume that the action of the trial court was correct and to indulge in this presumption until it is overthrown by error made to appear by the complaining party. The defendant has set out for our consideration [306]*306several affidavits reciting newly discovered evidence. But he has, singularly enough, omitted to place before the court any part of the original evidence in the cause. This should have been done in order that we might pass on the pertinency of the newly discovered evidence and ascertain if it be merely cumulative. As it is the defendant fails utterly to make error appear in the action of the court and hence we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J. —

This action is based on an account for legal services rendered by plaintiffs for defendant. The verdict and judgment in the trial court were ■ for plaintiffs.

The only ground of complaint made here is that the eourt erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence; such evidence accompanying the motion in the shape of affidavits of different persons.

It is the practice as well as the duty of appellate courts to presume that the action of the trial court was correct and to indulge in this presumption until it is overthrown by error made to appear by the complaining party. The defendant has set out for our consideration [306]*306several affidavits reciting newly discovered evidence. But he has, singularly enough, omitted to place before the court any part of the original evidence in the cause. This should have been done in order that we might pass on the pertinency of the newly discovered evidence and ascertain if it be merely cumulative. As it is the defendant fails utterly to make error appear in the action of the court and hence we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Mo. App. 304, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcantire-v-hewitt-moctapp-1898.