State ex rel. Muehl v. Robyn

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Muehl v. Robyn

25 Mo. App. 616, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 365

DecidedApril 25, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Mo. App. 616 (State ex rel. Muehl v. Robyn) 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

State ex rel. Muehl v. Robyn, 25 Mo. App. 616, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, J.

This was a proceeding against the directors of the school district of the town of Hermann, in Gasconade county, upon an alternative writ of mandamus, issued by the circuit court of that county. The respondents, having made their return, a replication was-filed, and the cause was submitted to the court to try the issues of fact, without the intervention of a jury. So far as the abstract of record, filed in this court by the appellant, discloses, no declarations of law were asked or given ; therefore, no question of law is before us for review (Smith v. County Court, 19 Mo. 433), except the question in relation to certain evidence, admitted by the court against the appellant’s objections. We cannot perceive how the admission of such evidence, although clearly irrelevant, could have worked the appellant any harm, as it could clearly, in no manner, have influenced ■the conclusion reached by the court. For these reasons judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Hall, J.

This was a proceeding against the directors of the school district of the town of Hermann, in Gasconade county, upon an alternative writ of mandamus, issued by the circuit court of that county. The respondents, having made their return, a replication was-filed, and the cause was submitted to the court to try the issues of fact, without the intervention of a jury. So far as the abstract of record, filed in this court by the appellant, discloses, no declarations of law were asked or given ; therefore, no question of law is before us for review (Smith v. County Court, 19 Mo. 433), except the question in relation to certain evidence, admitted by the court against the appellant’s objections. We cannot perceive how the admission of such evidence, although clearly irrelevant, could have worked the appellant any harm, as it could clearly, in no manner, have influenced ■the conclusion reached by the court. For these reasons judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Mo. App. 616, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-muehl-v-robyn-moctapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack