Vineyard v. Matney

Decided October 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1878-10-15

<p>Practice. The Supreme Court will not review the rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of evidence, unless the attention of the latter court has been called to the supposed error by the motion for new trial. It is not sufficient that exceptions were duly taken at the trial.</p>

Relies on Margrave v. Ausmuss · Brady v. Connelly · Saxton v. Allen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1918

10 state decisions

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 →

Sherwood, C. J.

¶1Action based on written contract. The ease hinges upon the propriety of the admission. of parol evidence in reference to that contract. Although exception was taken to the admission of such evidence, yet, as the attention of the court was not called to the alleged error in the motion for new trial, and opportunity thus afforded for correction of the supposed error, we cannot notice the point here. Brady v. Connelly, 52 Mo. 19; Saxton v. Allen, 49 Mo. 417; and the case stands here pre*106cisely as if the evidence had been admitted without objection. Margrave v. Ausmuss, 51 Mo. 561. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

¶2Arrirmed.