Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 61

Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 61

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1876 edition. Excerpt: ...upon in the first proceeding, which, it is contended, render the first judgment invalid; but we cannot notice them now. The writ of error, now before us, was sued out more than three years after the rendition of that judgment, and, therefore, it cannot be brought up now. If we were, however, disposed to look into the proceedings of condemnation, we do not think the errors assigned are maintainable. They are mostly technical, and whatever there was of substance, was unquestionably waived. The defendant was brought in on notice, and the court acquired jurisdiction. The only objections made were, that the plat was not accurate, and that damages should have been awarded to him. The court heard the testimony and decided against him. This was his reliance then, and he cannot be permitted to change his ground now. The only question is, whether the court did right in entering up the judgment nuncpro lunc. The law pointed out the judgment that the court was required to render, and whether it should render that judgment or not, was the matter in issue. Defendant presented objections against it, but they were overruled, and the judgment was ordered for the company as prayed for in the petition, and the clerk made a mistake or omission in writing up the formal judgment. All this sufiiciently appears of record and presented the requisite data to amend by. It follows that the court properly rendcred the judgment, and its action should be afiirmed. All the judges concur. Per Snsawoon, J., concurring. I concur, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Jones vs. Hart, 60 Mo. 351. That case and the present one are, in point of principle, precisely parallel. In order to conspicuously show this I here place the data from which the respective...
show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 234 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 426g
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236936876
  • 9781236936875