TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Bullock

Clark v. Bullock, 65 Mo. 535 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1877
Judges
Sherwood
Citations
65 Mo. 535
Headnotes
1. Practice: bill or exceptions. The Supreme Court can notice nothing contained in a bill of exceptions not filed during the term of the court at which it is taken, unless the filing after the term he by consent of parties entered of record: 2. -: remittitur. Where the plaintiff desired a remittitur entered for the amount in excess of that claimed in his petition, and this excess was the only error in the record, the judgment of the lower court, modified by the desired entry, was affirmed ; but it was held that plaintiff must pay the costs of the appeal.
Summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.—Hon. Foster P. Wright, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sherwood

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

Sherwood, C. J.

The bill of exceptions, in order to become a part of the record, must be filed “ during the term of the court, at which it is taken and not after,” (W. S. 1043, section 28; Id. 1044, section 31; Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo. 301 , and cas. cit.,) unless by consent of parties entered of record, it be filed at a subsequent period and *536 within the time thus agreed upon, (Mentzing v. P. R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 25 , and cas. cit.) Neither the rule in its statutory-strictness, nor as relaxed by the decisions above noted having been complied with, we can notice nothing which the bill of exceptions, so called, contains. And' as the only error arising on the record proper, will be cured by a remittitur, which the plaintiff desires entered for the excess of recovery on one of the counts of his petition, the judgment of the lower court, modified by the desired entry, will be affirmed; but the plaintiff must pay the costs of this appeal. Miller v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545 .

All concur.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1877–1878: 21885–1886: 21889–1890: 11893–1894: 11899–1900: 11901–1902: 118772026peak 1877 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Exchange National Bank v. Allen68 Mo. 474 (1878)
  2. Trustees of Christian University v. Hoffman69 S.W. 474 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
  3. State ex rel. Robertson v. Hope25 S.W. 893 (Mo. 1894)
  4. Pope v. Thomson66 Mo. 661 (1877)
  5. Chapman v. J. W. Beltz & Sons Co.35 S.E. 1013 (W. Va. 1900)
  6. Burkeholder v. Rudrow19 Mo. App. 60 (1885)

Most recent

  1. Trustees of Christian University v. Hoffman69 S.W. 474 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
  2. Chapman v. J. W. Beltz & Sons Co.35 S.E. 1013 (W. Va. 1900)
  3. State ex rel. Robertson v. Hope25 S.W. 893 (Mo. 1894)
  4. Stevens v. Stevens35 Mo. App. 50 (1889)
  5. McCord v. Doniphan Branch Railroad21 Mo. App. 317 (1886)
  6. Burkeholder v. Rudrow19 Mo. App. 60 (1885)

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

DepthCaseCited by
Miller v. Hardin, 64 Mo. 545 (1877) 28
Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo. 301 (1874) 13
Mentzing v. Pac. R. R., 64 Mo. 25 (1876) 3

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