Herring v. Corder
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Richabd Field, Judge. The judgment is erroneous because: First. It is not' in the alternative as required by statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Richabd Field, Judge. The judgment is erroneous because: First. It is not' in the alternative as required by statute. The language of the judgment is “that the defendant recover of plaintiff the said ninety-one hogs and three calves, or, at his election, take judgment for the sum of $442.” The language of the statute in reference to judgments of this kind is that it shall be “that the plaintiff return the property or pay the value so assessed at the election of defendant.” R. S. 1889, sec. 7490; State ex rel. v. Dunn, 64 Mo. 70 ;■ Cobbey on…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of replevin. The answer admitted plaintiff was entitled to a portion of the property, and denied his being so entitled to other portions. Judgment was rendered in defendant’s favor for a large part of the property claimed by him in his answer, and plaintiff appeals. Many of plaintiff’s points in the case cannot be considered, from the fact that the bill of exceptions was filed after the expiration of the time granted him for filing.
On the record proper we find no error justifying a reversal. The judgment, “ that the defendant recover of plaintiff the said ninety-one hogs and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hopper v. HopperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Dixon v. AtkinsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900