Skip to content

Lawther v. Agee

Hans Lawther, in Error v. Ransom Agee, in Error

Lawther v. Agee, 34 Mo. 372 (1864)

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 15, 1864
Judges: Bay, Other
Citations: 34 Mo. 372

Cited by 13

Headnotes

Practice — Error—Irregularity.—If a judgment by default in a suit not founded upon a bond, bill, or note, for the direct payment of money, be made finaj at the same term at which the default is entered, it will be irregular ; but the defendant seeking to take advantage of the irregularity, must make his application by motion in the inferior court to set aside the judgment, and not by writ of error or appeal to the Supreme Court. (Pee Watson v. Welsh et al., 10 Mo. 454, et supra Branstetter v. Rives et al., 318.)

Summary

Appeal from Callaway Circuit Court. I. The Circuit Court erred in rendering a final judgment against the plaintiff in error at the October term, 1863, of the Callaway Circuit Court. That judgment ought to have been an interlocutory judgment with a writ of inquiry to the next succeeding term thereafter. The judgment could not be rendered final at tlie October term of the court. The record does not show that any interlocutory judgment was ever entered against the defendant, either at the term the final judgment was rendered, or at any preceding term of the court. (R. C. 1855, p. 1280, § 9-11; Hopkins v. McGee, 33 Mo. 312.) II. The errors complained of being patent in the judgment and record, no motion to set the same aside in the court below was necessary. (Carr & Co. v. Edwards, 1 Mo. 137; Weston v. Miles, 9 Mo. 167; Beckwith, Adm’r of Smith, v. Boyce, 12 Mo. 440; Maupin v. Triplett, 5 Mo. 422 ; Hemp-stead v. Stone, 2 Mo. 541; Morris v. Pate, 31 Mo. 315 ; Harbor v. PacificR.R. Co., 32 Mo. 423; R. C. 1855, p. 1301, §35; Hayton v. Hope, 3 Mo. 54.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Bay

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

Bay, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Doan v. Holly, 26 Mo. 186 , it was decided by this court that a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note for the direct payment of money, is not one of those actions in which the law contemplates that a judgment by default may be proceeded with to final judgment at the return term.

In Hopkins v. McGee, 33 Mo. 312 , we held that in actions not founded on bonds, bills, or notes, for the direct payment of money or property, an interlocutory judgment could not be taken and made final at the same term, but that the taking of the one must precede that of the other at least one term.

In the case at bar, an interlocutory judgment was taken at the October term, 1863, and made final at the same term. This was an irregularity which entitles the defendant to have the judgment set aside, by motion in the court below. It is not a void judgment, but an irregular judgment, and the remedy of the defendant was to move to set it aside; and if the court had overruled the motion, it would have been error, for which this court would have reversed the judgment. But the defendant having omitted to take any steps in the court below to have the judgment set aside5 *374 lie cannot avail himself of the irregularity by an appeal to this court. (See Watson v. Walsh & Patterson, 10 Mo. 454 , and Branstetter v. Rives, decided at the present term of this court.

The other judges concurring,

the judgment will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Cross v. Gould110 S.W. 672 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
Lilly v. Menke28 S.W. 643 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent
Weil v. Simmons66 Mo. 617 (1877) · Dissent
Ealy v. McGahen21 P.2d 84 (N.M. 1933)
Mills v. Miller2 Neb. 299 (1873)
Sims v. Gray66 Mo. 613 (1877)

Most recent

Ealy v. McGahen21 P.2d 84 (N.M. 1933)
Brown v. Marshall145 S.W. 810 (Mo. 1912)
Cross v. Gould110 S.W. 672 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
Reed Bros. v. Nicholson93 Mo. App. 29 (1902)
Reed Bros. v. Nicholson59 S.W. 977 (Mo. 1900)
Lilly v. Menke28 S.W. 643 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent

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 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Doan v. Holly, 26 Mo. 186 (1858)	7
	Watson v. Walsh & Patterson, 10 Mo. 454 (1847)	4
	Hopkins v. McGee, 33 Mo. 312 (1863)	3