Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 Mo. 21

Bailey v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1859-10-15

Charles Circuit Cowrt. I. The court should have found the facts as required by the practice act of 1849. (15 Mo. 400; 17 Mo. 550; 19 Mo. 122; 20 Mo. 132; 24 Mo. 51; 26 Mo. 166, 494; 27 Mo. 418.) I. The finding conforms to the petition. The only allegation in the petition in issue was “ found” by the court in the very language in which it is stated in the petition. If the 'fact is correctly stated in the petition, the same fact is correctly found by the court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1919

3 state decisions

101859186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Napton, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This case was tried by the court under the practice act of 1849, and there was no finding of facts. The entry upon the record is: “ This cause being submitted to the court for trial, the court finds that said defendant is not guilty of unlawfully withholding from said plaintiff the possession of the premises in the petition mentioned, in manner and form as therein alleged. It is therefore considered by the court,” &o.

¶3"We understand this is a mere verdict of “ not guilty” in an action of trespass in ejectment, and no more constitutes such a finding of facts as was contemplated by the practice act than if the court had found simply for the defendant.” The statute says •: “ Upon a trial of a question of fact by the court, its decision shall be given in writing and filed with the clerk. In giving the decision, the facts shall first be stated and the conclusions of law upon them.” The object of the act was manifestly to enable parties to make a case for the revision of this court, in which the facts and law would separately appear, without requiring instructions and bills of exceptions. This purpose would be entirely defeated if the verdict of the court merely affirms or negatives the allegations of the petition or answer.

¶4It is urged in this case that, as the verdict was for the defendant, the practice heretofore prevailing in this court, to send the case back for a finding, is inapplicable and inappropriate. But we can not see any ground for such a discrimination.

Judge Ewing concurring, judgment reversed and cause remanded. Judge Scott absent.
/29/mo/21 · .json · Public domain