TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morse v. Brownfield

Morse v. Brownfield, 27 Mo. 224 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1858
Judges
Richardson
Citations
27 Mo. 224
Headnotes
1. The technical rules of practice are not applicable to proceedings before justices of the peace. 2. Where in the trial, before a justice of the peace, of an issue raised by an in-terplea in an attachment suit, the justice entered on his docket the verdict of the jury but omitted to render judgment on it, and the interpleader appealed to the circuit court, where the appeal was dismissed for want of a judgment by the justice; held, that such dismissal was improper.
Summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. cited Franse v. Owens, 25 Mo. 329; Rutherford v. Wimer, 3 Mo. 12.

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

Opinion of the Court — Richardson

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

Richardson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The history of this controversy is so briefly narrated in the record that it is impossible to see its real merits. It appears however that it is a suit by attachment commenced before a justice of the peace, and that the main issue was made by *225 the interplea of Brownfield, who> claimed the property in the hands of the garnishee. The issue was tried by a jury, who found against the claim, and thereupon the interpleader appealed to the circuit court. The verdict was entered by the justice on his docket, but he omitted to render judgment on it, and for that reason the appeal was dismissed.

It would be unwise and unsafe to apply technical rules to proceedings in justices’ courts, and therefore forms are disregarded when it can be seen that the law has been substantially observed.

A justice of the peace is required to enter the verdict of a jury on his docket and to render judgment accordingly ; and, having no control over verdicts and no discretion to exercise on the subject, the duty of giving judgment on a verdict is peremptory and ministerial in its character. It has therefore been decided that the effect of a formal judgment ought to be given to a verdict as soon as it is entered on a justice’s docket. (Rutherford v. Wimer, 3 Mo. 12 ; Franse v. Owens, 25 Mo. 329 .)

The other judges concurring, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1872–1873: 11886–1887: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 11908–1909: 118722026peak 1872 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Giett v. McGannon Mercantile Co.74 Mo. App. 209 (1898)
  2. Hazeltine v. Reusch51 Mo. 50 (1872)
  3. Stephenson v. Jones84 Mo. App. 249 (1900)
  4. State ex rel. Vanderburg v. Bidwell118 S.W. 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  5. Porter v. Parker33 N.W. 70 (1887)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Vanderburg v. Bidwell118 S.W. 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  2. Stephenson v. Jones84 Mo. App. 249 (1900)
  3. Giett v. McGannon Mercantile Co.74 Mo. App. 209 (1898)
  4. Porter v. Parker33 N.W. 70 (1887)
  5. Hazeltine v. Reusch51 Mo. 50 (1872)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Franse v. Owens, 25 Mo. 329 (1857) 15
Cnty. of Boone v. Corlew, 3 Mo. 12 (1831) 9

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