TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Warner v. Morin

Warner v. Morin, 13 Mo. 455 (1850)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1850
Judges
Birch
Citations
13 Mo. 455
Headnotes
Practice in the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court will not consider anything as aground for reviewing a proceeding or judgment of the Circuit Court which has not been finally passed upon by that court, either m a motion for a new trial, if the alleged error has relation to proceedings during the trial, or in arrest of judgment if relating to the pleadings.
Summary
APPEAL ER01I CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Birch

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BIRCH, J.

It is unnecessary to further state the nature or condition of this ease, than that as the counsel for the appellee has made the point so often passed upon by this court, its judgment must be rendered accordingly. Our jurisdiction of the case being appellate (purely), we are of course unauthorized to consider anything as a ground for reviewing a proceeding or a judgment here, which was not brought properly to the notice, and hence not finally passed upon by the court below, either in the motion for a new trial, if the alleged errors have relation to proceedings during the trial, or in arrest of udgment if going to the pleadings. The judgment of the court below is therer ore left unreviewed, and consequently affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1883–1884: 11885–1886: 11893–1894: 41901–1902: 11907–1908: 11937–1938: 118832026peak 1893 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Erdbruegger v. Meier14 Mo. App. 258 (1883) · Dissent
  2. Lilly v. Menke28 S.W. 643 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent
  3. Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co.27 S.W. 715 (Mo. 1894)
  4. Walter v. Scofield67 S.W. 276 (Mo. 1902)
  5. McClintock v. Central Bank24 S.W. 1052 (Mo. 1894)
  6. City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.102 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. 1937)

Most recent

  1. City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.102 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. 1937)
  2. Dunlap v. Kelly109 S.W. 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
  3. Walter v. Scofield67 S.W. 276 (Mo. 1902)
  4. Lilly v. Menke28 S.W. 643 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent
  5. Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co.27 S.W. 715 (Mo. 1894)
  6. McClintock v. Central Bank24 S.W. 1052 (Mo. 1894)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list