Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

61 Mo. 434

Case v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1875

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1875-10-15

<p> Error to Jasper County Common Pleas Court. </p> <p>cited Wilson vs. Boughton, 50 Mo., 17; Boon vs. Miller, 16 Mo., 457; Sto. Eq., § 166.</p> <p>cited in argument, Art. 6, Const, of IS65, § 21; Id., §23; Hall vs. Bray, 51 Mo., 288 ; Rogers ex rel. vs. Judge Co. Ct. La Crosse Co., 11 Wis.. 50; Ashley vs. Glasgow, 7Mo., 161; Harber vs. Pacific R. R. Co. 32 Mo., 423; Wagn. Stat., 1062, § 26; U. S. Union R. R. Trans. Co. vs. Traube, 59 Mo. 355 ; Anthony vs. Dunlap, 8 Cal., 26; Chipman vs. Hillard, id., 268; In re Booth, 3 Wis., 1; Wood vs. Lake, 13 Wis., 84; Booth vs. Ableman et al., 16 Wis., 460; Graham ex rel. vs. Chamber Comm., 20 Wis., 63 ; Ex parte-Booth, 1 Wis., 145 ; Metzner vs. Graham, 57 Mo., 404; 1 Sto. Eq.. § 146; 2 Id., §§ 887, 896-7; Watson vs. Eield, 10 Mo., 100.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1931

3 state decisions

101875188018901900191019201930decided

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 tlie court.

¶2This was an application to a court of equity to have a mistake in a judgment corrected. The original suit was upon a mortgage, and this mistake occurred in a wrong calculation *435of the principal atid interest due on the note, secured by the mortgage, for over 13,000 dollars, upon which several payments had been made. The attorney for the plaintiff made the calculation, and being asked by the court for the amount, stated it at a sum about $1,200 less than it ought to have been. This mistake was not discovered till after the end of the term. The case is in all particulars like that of Wilson vs. Boughton, (50 Mo., 18) except that the application in this case was made to a court of common pleas, which, however, was invested hv the statute with general concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court. In conformity with the decision in the case cited, this judgment, must be reversed and the cause remanded.

All the other judges concur.
/61/mo/434 · .json · Public domain