State ex rel. Webster v. Knight

46 Mo. 83
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 46 Mo. 83 (State ex rel. Webster v. Knight) 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
State ex rel. Webster v. Knight, 46 Mo. 83 (Mo. 1870).

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition asking that a writ of mandamus may be issued against the respondent, who is one of the judges of the St. Louis Circuit Court, to compel him to receive a verdict rendered by a jury. It seems that there was a ease pending in said court wherein Smith and others were plaintiffs, and Webster, the relator, was defendant, in which the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find a verdict for defendants, they to pay the costs of this suit.” This-verdict the respondent refused to receive, and discharged the jury. The refusal, it appears, -was based on the fact that the jury assessed costs against the defendant when [85]*85at tbe same iime they found in his favor. In this they erred and went beyond their power, as our statute declares that in all civil actions and proceedings of any kind the party prevailing shall recover his costs against the other party, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.

The jury found for the defendant; the verdict was good and complete. The matter of costs was not in issue, and was not submitted to them. That part of their verdict, therefore, was merely void, and should have been disregarded as surplusage. The writ will issue, but the plaintiffs in the suit will have leave to file their motion for a new trial in the same manner as if the verdict had been received and entered at the proper time.

Peremptory writ ordered.

The other judges concur.

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

Related

Braboy v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
238 S.W.3d 690 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)
Hinton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
741 S.W.2d 696 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
Hatton v. Carder Wholesale Grocery Co.
150 S.W.2d 1096 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1941)
Kimberlin v. Roberts
107 S.W.2d 24 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
State Ex Rel. St. Louis Public Service Co. v. Becker
66 S.W.2d 141 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Berryman v. Peoples Motorbus Co.
54 S.W.2d 747 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Reynolds v. Kanzler
269 P. 230 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
State Ex Rel. Neill v. Nutter
128 S.E. 142 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1925)
Lehrer v. Cleveland Railway Co.
20 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 481 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Knisely v. Holtcamp
181 S.W. 1007 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
State ex rel. Snow Steam Pump Works v. Homer
155 S.W. 405 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Summers v. Keller
133 S.W. 1180 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Southern Railway Co. v. Oliver & Morrow
58 S.E. 244 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Crooks v. Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah
59 P. 529 (Utah Supreme Court, 1899)
State v. Hart
57 P. 415 (Utah Supreme Court, 1899)
State ex rel. Fuller v. Beall
67 N.W. 868 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
State ex rel. Martin v. Wofford
25 S.W. 851 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
State v. Snyder
98 Mo. 555 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips
97 Mo. 331 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Poulson v. Collier
18 Mo. App. 583 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Mo. 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-webster-v-knight-mo-1870.