Mentzing v. Pacific R. R.

64 Mo. 25
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action for damages for killing an ox and judgment for $60, the amount claimed.

It is impossible for us to review the alleged error of the circuit court in affirming the judgment of the justice since there is no bill of exceptions here. We have in numerous instances held, that unless upon consent of parties made matter of record, this court could not grant permission to file a hill of exceptions in vacation. In the present instance such consent does not appear and in conformity to previous rulings, (Blankenship vs. N. M. R. R. Co.,40 Mo. 376; West vs. Fowler, 55 Mo. 300; West vs. Fowler, 59 Mo. 40; Ellis vs. Andrews, 25 Mo. 327; Pomeroy vs. Selmes, 8 Mo. 521; Consant vs. Sidell, 7 Mo. 250 ; Hassinger vs. Pye, 10 Mo. 156; Diepenbrock vs. Shaw, 21 Mo. 122; Sutter vs. Street, Id. 157; State vs. McO’Blenis, Id. 272; Fanor vs. Finney, Id. 569; Ruble vs. Thomasson, 20 Mo. 263; Wilcoxson vs. McBride, 23 Mo. 404), inasmuch as no error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed ;

all the judges concur, except Judge Hough not sitting.

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

Mentzing v. Pacific R. R., 64 Mo. 25 (Mo. 1876).

64 Mo. 25 (Mentzing v. Pacific R. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ryan
22 S.W. 486 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Bank of North America v. Fletcher
15 Mo. App. 272 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Clark v. Bullock
65 Mo. 535 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)