Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Mo. 374

Chambers v. Carthel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1865

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1865-01-15

The judgment was irregular, and could be for that irregularity set aside on motion at any time within three years, (R. C. 1855, p. 1290, § 26,) and the time limited had not expired. A judgment is irregular whenever given for a greater amount than that shown by the petition and accompanying papers to be due.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1934

5 state decisions

2018651870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Bates, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court1.

¶2The defendant suffered judgment to go against him by default, and at a subsequent term moved the court to set aside the judgment for the following reasons:

¶31. Said judgment is irregular in this, that it is rendered for a greater sum than plaintiff is entitled to by the instrument on which he brings suit.

¶42. Said judgment bears ten per cent; interest, and the-said instrument sued on draws no interest.

¶53. Said-judgment is rendered for damages, and plaintiff is entitled to none.

¶6The motion was overruled and the defendant brings up the case.

¶7The Circuit :Court did not err in overruling the motion. Without adverting to other reasons in support of the judgment of the Circuit Court, it is sufficient to say, that-the motion is upon grounds which would require the court to review the evidence upon which the judgment was given. It claims that the judgment is too large, not because it exceeds the amount claimed in -the petition, but because it exceeds the amount to which he was entitled by the-instrument sued on. The promissory note is not a part of the petition, though *376filed with it, and the clerk in certifying to this court a copy of the record, did wrong in copying the note into it; the note is no part of the record. For all that appears by the record, the judgment of the Circuit Court is correct in every particular.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.
/35/mo/374 · .json · Public domain