Thompson v. Russell

30 Mo. 498
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided July 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Ewing, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill of exceptions docs not show that any instructions were given or refused. In a paper attached to the transcript there appear what purport to be and may have been intended as instructions, but there is nothing whatever showing that they are any proper part of the bill of exceptions. If they were, however, no exceptions appear to have been taken at the time to the ruling of the court in giving or refusing them, and they would not therefore be reviewed by this court, although such ruling may have been made the ground for a motion for a new trial. (Power v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; 27 Mo. 417.) There having been a trial and verdict by a jury, this court will not interfere with the judgment upon the ground that the court below refused a new trial because of the verdict’s being against evidence or against the weight of evidence. (15 Mo. 193.)

Judgment affirmed. The other judges concur.

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

Thompson v. Russell, 30 Mo. 498 (Mo. 1860).

30 Mo. 498 (Thompson v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Malin v. Merriam
60 S.W. 1112 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
Ewing v. Reilly
34 Mo. 113 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1863)
Boyse v. Crickard
31 Mo. 530 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1862)