Metz v. Blattner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Metz v. Blattner

72 S.W. 489, 99 Mo. App. 154, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 163

DecidedFebruary 17, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.W. 489 (Metz v. Blattner) 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

Metz v. Blattner, 72 S.W. 489, 99 Mo. App. 154, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 163 (Mo. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

REYBTJRN, J.

After due notice defendant in error presented for allowance against the-estate of deceased, his father-in-law, an account made up of a series of debit items, with one item of credit, and a trial was had upon the claim before the court in the Cape Girardeau .Court of Common Pleas. A number of witnesses being examined on both sides, as well as. documentary testimony being introduced, both for the claimant and the estate, the court allowed the claim, classifying it as a fifth-class demand. A motion for new trial on behalf of the administrator was duly filed [156]*156and overruled, exceptions being then saved on behalf of the administrator to this action of the court. The record fails to set forth the saving of any exception on •behalf of plaintiff in error to any ruling of the lower court, excepting the overruling of the motion for new trial. There was no objection made to the admission of any evidence, nor were any instructions asked on behalf of plaintiff in error. The testimony was conflicting, and the plausibility of plaintiff’s claim in many respects assailed, but the judgment of the court below is sustained by substantial evidence, and as no declarations of law were prayed, there are no errors presented by the record for the review of this court, and the judgment below allowing and classifying the claim must be affirmed. Riffe v. Wabash R. R., 72 Mo. App. 222; Rice v. McClure, 74 Mo. App. 383.

Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

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

REYBTJRN, J.

After due notice defendant in error presented for allowance against the-estate of deceased, his father-in-law, an account made up of a series of debit items, with one item of credit, and a trial was had upon the claim before the court in the Cape Girardeau .Court of Common Pleas. A number of witnesses being examined on both sides, as well as. documentary testimony being introduced, both for the claimant and the estate, the court allowed the claim, classifying it as a fifth-class demand. A motion for new trial on behalf of the administrator was duly filed [156]*156and overruled, exceptions being then saved on behalf of the administrator to this action of the court. The record fails to set forth the saving of any exception on •behalf of plaintiff in error to any ruling of the lower court, excepting the overruling of the motion for new trial. There was no objection made to the admission of any evidence, nor were any instructions asked on behalf of plaintiff in error. The testimony was conflicting, and the plausibility of plaintiff’s claim in many respects assailed, but the judgment of the court below is sustained by substantial evidence, and as no declarations of law were prayed, there are no errors presented by the record for the review of this court, and the judgment below allowing and classifying the claim must be affirmed. Riffe v. Wabash R. R., 72 Mo. App. 222; Rice v. McClure, 74 Mo. App. 383.

Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.W. 489, 99 Mo. App. 154, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metz-v-blattner-moctapp-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack