Mentzing v. Pacific R. R.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Special I^aw and Equity Court. A. bill of exceptions in this case, it appears, was signed and filed but in vacation and without consent of respondent. Blankenship vs. North Mo. R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 376 ; Ellis vs. Andrews, 25 Mo. 327 ; Wilcoxson vs. McBride, 23 Mo. 404; Diepenbrock vs. Shaw, 21 Mo. 122; Sutter vs. Street, 21 Mo. 157 ; State vs.. McO’Blenis, 21 Mo. 272.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Action for damages for killing an ox and judgment for $60, the amount claimed.
It is impossible for us to review the alleged error of the circuit court in affirming the judgment of the justice since there is no bill of exceptions here. We have in numerous instances held, that unless upon consent of parties made matter of record, this court could not grant permission to file a hill of exceptions in vacation. In the present instance such consent does not appear and in conformity to previous rulings, (Blankenship vs. N. M. R. R. Co.,40 Mo. 376; West vs. Fowler, 55 Mo. 300; West vs. Fowler, 59 Mo.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Consaul v. LidellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1841
- West v. FowlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- West v. FowlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Ellis v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Ruble v. ThomassonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Clark v. BullockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Bank of North America v. FletcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- State v. RyanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894