Blankenship v. North Missouri Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Clinton Circuit Court. This court cannot regard the paper which purports to be d bill of exceptions, because it was not signed by the judge or by three bystanders, and because the affidavits filed in support of the same were not made under a state of facts which authorize the court to consider them. _ (Wagn. Stat. 1043-4, §§ 27-35.)
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This action was originally instituted before a justice of the peace, and the complaint asked for double damages for the killing of a cow belonging to the plaintiff by the defendant. The justice gave judgment for the value of the cow, and refused to award double damages. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court, where the same judgment was rendered. The record in this court presents nothing to be reviewed. There was no 'question of law raised or saved on the trial, and there is really no bill of exceptions. The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Holden v. VaughanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Inabinett v. Saint Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- State v. RyanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894