Rotchford v. Creamer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.—IIon. Geo. A. Madill, ■ Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
1. practice in supreme nousfmotion0fforXne?v tnaL
I. This proceeding had for its object the settling and adjustment of the affairs of a co-partnership. By consent of parties the matters of difference were,by order of the court, submitted to a referee, who took testimony and made his report, which (with the exception of one modification which the court made of its own motion) was confirmed and judgment' rendered for plaintiff, and this judgment the court in general term affirmed. We are precluded from any examination into the merits of the cause, because the motion for a new trial is not…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Coy v. LandersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- McNeil v. Home InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Campbell v. BoyersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Hubbard v. QuisenberryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- State ex rel. Tygard v. ElliottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.