Weilandy v. Lemuel

47 Mo. 322
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 47 Mo. 322 (Weilandy v. Lemuel) 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
Weilandy v. Lemuel, 47 Mo. 322 (Mo. 1871).

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment, tried by consent of parties before the court, without the intervention of a jury. No instructions were ashed or given. The court, after hearing the evidence, found a verdict for the defendants and rendered judgment thereon. We can not weigh the evidence, and undertake to say whether it justified the finding and judgment of the court or not, and as no question of law is saved, the case can not be reversed. (Easley v. Elliott, 43 Mo. 289; Wilson v. North Missouri R.R. Co., 46 Mo. 36.)

This court will not review the evidence to find whether the Circuit Court has come to the proper conclusion, except in strictly equitable cases. Under the practice act of 1849 the law was different, and required the court to make a finding of facts in the nature of a special verdict, with its conclusions as to the law [323]*323thereon; and even then it was deemed to be the better course for the court, when trying a cause in the first place, to declare what the law was, and then, in its capacity of a jury, to find the issue of fact accordingly. (Piercefield v. Snyder, 14 Mo. 583.)

But now the court, in trying issues of fact, sits as a jury and gives a general verdict; and the only way in which its errors can be corrected, if it decides the law wrongfully, or makes a misapplication of the law to the facts, is to ask declarations of law-or instructions, in order that we may see on what theory the court proceeded. To attempt to review this case would simply be giving our opinion upon the weight of evidence, when no point of law was saved or raised in the trial court. This we can not do.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

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

Related

In re Assessment of Collateral Inheritance Tax in Estate of Lankford
197 S.W. 147 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
Little v. Hooker Steam Pump Co.
100 S.W. 561 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Jordan v. Davis
72 S.W. 686 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Bozarth v. Lincoln Legion of Honor
67 S.W. 679 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Wischmeyer v. Richardson
55 S.W. 74 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Rice, Stix & Co. v. McClure & Harper
74 Mo. App. 383 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Riffe v. Wabash Railroad
72 Mo. App. 222 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Bethune v. Cleveland, St. Louis & Kansas City Railway Co.
41 S.W. 213 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Warder-Bushnell-Glesser Co. v. Allen
63 Mo. App. 456 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Heidelback, Freidlander & Co. v. Cole
54 Mo. App. 138 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
DeGiverville v. Legg
48 Mo. App. 573 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Patterson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad
47 Mo. App. 570 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Taylor v. Cayce
97 Mo. 242 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Field v. Crecelius
20 Mo. App. 302 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Suits v. Taylor
20 Mo. App. 166 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Ford v. City of Cameron
19 Mo. App. 467 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Cunningham v. Snow
82 Mo. 587 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Harrington v. Minor
80 Mo. 270 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Henry v. Bell
75 Mo. 194 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
Holden v. Vaughan
64 Mo. 588 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Mo. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weilandy-v-lemuel-mo-1871.