Judge v. Booge
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Sixth District Court. I. The decree in this case is erroneous because it does not recite or state the facts on which-itis founded or which the court below considered as proved. This is error for which a bill of review would lie. A decree in chancery, without finding the facts that warrant it, is erroneous. (1 Root, 278.) A decree in chancery must find the facts directly and positively. {Id. 466, 521; 2 Ch. Cas. 161; 2 Mad.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sixth District Court. I. The decree in this case is erroneous because it does not recite or state the facts on which-itis founded or which the court below considered as proved. This is error for which a bill of review would lie. A decree in chancery, without finding the facts that warrant it, is erroneous. (1 Root, 278.) A decree in chancery must find the facts directly and positively. {Id. 466, 521; 2 Ch. Cas. 161; 2 Mad. Ch. '453 ; 1 Harrison’s Ch. Prec. 108; 10 Yerg. 41.) A decree must be not only secundum prolata, but also secundum allegata. ‘(5 Mason, 113.) A decree must be…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
It is insisted by the counsel for the appellant that the decree in this case is erroneous. because it does not recite or state the facts on which it is founded or which the court below considered as proved. But under our present code it is not required that the facts upon which the decree is based should be specifically found. Under the practice act of 1849 it was necessary to find the facts. The judgment was the legal conclusion of the facts set out in the finding, and therefore the finding had to contain all the facts necessary to sustain the judgment. But the law, as enacted in 1855, has…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Richards v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Goode v. ComfortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Barnard v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- State ex rel. Allen v. Judges of the St. Louis Circuit CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Kurlbaum v. RoepkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by13 opinions
- Stoffel v. SchroederSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Parkinson v. CaplingerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Harlin v. NationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Bovard v. BovardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939
- Griffith v. Kansas City Material & Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.