Legal Opinion

Benham v. Banker-Edwards Building Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 4, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

jError to the St. Louis City Circuit Co%irt. — Hon. Daniel D. Eisheb, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtRombatjer, P. J.

The plaintiffs in error prosecute this writ from a judgment of mechanic’s lien rendered against property, of which they are mortgagees. There *35is no bill of exceptions in the record; hence, as- the judgment was one by default, the writ brings up for review only the sufficiency of the petition and judgment entry. The sufficiency of the judgment entry is not challenged, but the sufficiency of the petition is; and, as this may be done in this state for the first time on appeal or error, we are bound to pass on the objections made.

The plaintiffs in error claim that it appears conclusively from the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jones v. LoudermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
  2. Cole v. BarronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
  3. Jones v. Hurst.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  4. Goff v. PapinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Missouri State Highway Commission Ex Rel. Licking State Bank v. Coopers Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API