Jodd v. Mehrtens
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. G. G. Allen, Judge. (1) The trial court found for the defendant not only against the weight of the evidence, but in direct opposition to all of the evidence in the cause, and the court therefore erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Doering v. Sauna, 56 Mo. 480; Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo. 680. Dower is not within the Statute of Limitations, unless made so expressly.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. G. G. Allen, Judge. (1) The trial court found for the defendant not only against the weight of the evidence, but in direct opposition to all of the evidence in the cause, and the court therefore erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Doering v. Sauna, 56 Mo. 480; Ittner v. Hughes, 133 Mo. 680. Dower is not within the Statute of Limitations, unless made so expressly. Dyer v. "Witler, 89 Mo. 95. The law existing at the time of marriage (1848) and not at the time of its dissolution (1878) determines the marital rights of the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
BOND, J.
(After statement of facts as above).— Upon the calling of the cause in this court, it was submitted without argument, upon the briefs filed by both parties. It must be confessed that the abstract statement, brief and argument filed on behalf of appellant does not disclose that her motion for new.trial was preserved in a bill of exceptions. And we might for that reason, under the repeated rulings of this court, decline to consider any question on this appeal other than those arising upon the record proper. [Jodd v. Lee, *397256 Mo. 536; State ex rel. v. Adkins, 221 Mo. l. c.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- DeHatre v. EdmondsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Campbell v. GreerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Crain v. PetermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Dunnington v. HudsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Jodd v. LeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914