Arkansas Land Co. v. Ladd
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) No exception to the overruling of defendant’s motion for á. new trial being shown by the record, there is nothing before this court for review. (2) The referee’s findings of fact stand as the verdict of a jury, and will not be reviewed on appeal. Tufts v. Latshaw, 172 Mo. 359. Especially is this true where the testimony before the referee is not set out in appellant’s abstract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Franklin Ferriss, Judge. (1) No exception to the overruling of defendant’s motion for á. new trial being shown by the record, there is nothing before this court for review. (2) The referee’s findings of fact stand as the verdict of a jury, and will not be reviewed on appeal. Tufts v. Latshaw, 172 Mo. 359. Especially is this true where the testimony before the referee is not set out in appellant’s abstract. Roth v. Continental Wire Co., 94 Mo. App. 236.
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
— The suit is in replevin for books, deeds,- documents, etc., pertaining to real estate situated in the State of Arkansas, owned or claimed by plaintiff. A writ of replevin was issued and delivered to the sheriff of the city of St. Louis and by him served on the defendant who gave a forthcoming bond and retained ¡possession of the articles sued for. The answer was a general denial and a plea of the statute of limitations. On motion of defendant, the cause was referred to the Hon. E. W. Pattison who heard the evidence and made and filed his finding which is as follows:
“1. I find that the two…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tufts v. LatshawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Bosley v. CookMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3Cited by2 opinions
- Anderson v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Campbell v. BoyersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912