Case Name: BECKWITH ADM'R OF SMITH vs. BOYCE
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1849-03
Citations: 12 Mo. 440
Docket Number: 
Parties: BECKWITH ADM’R OF SMITH vs. BOYCE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
BECKWITH ADM’R OF SMITH vs. BOYCE.
When ajudgment is rendered for a greater amount of damages (hah that laid in the declaration, it is erior; and the judgment should be reversed.
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
Bogy for plaintiff.
1. The judgment below is erroneous because it is for a greater sum than is laid in plaintiffs declaration. 2 Blackford 459, Johnson vs. Hawkins; 3 Blackford 133, Phillips vs. Nichols ; U. S. Digest, vol. 2 ; p. 665 ; 2 Howard’s Mo. Rep. 686, Potter vs. Prescott.
. 2. Where ajudgment in an action of assumpsit is for a greater sum than the damages laid in the declaration it is error. 1 Mo. Rep. 615, Johnson vs. Robertson; Carr §e. Vs. Edwards, 1 Mo. R. 137¡; Maupin vs. Triplett, 5 Mo, R. 422.
Pork for defendant.
1. The only mode of taking advantage of a merely defective or imperfect finding of a jury is by motion in arrest of judgment. Finney et al vs. The State 9 Mo. R. 636; Davidson vs. Peck 4 Mo. R. 445.
2. This court is one whose jurisdiction in all civil actions between citizen and citizen is exclusively appellate for the correction of errors by the inferior courts of record, and therefore it will not reverse the judgment of the inferior court for any matter which is not distinctly brought before that court and passed on by it. State constitution; 4 Wend. 182 et seq, Houghton vs. Starr ; 2 Wend. 144 ; 2 Cowen 31; 17 John. 4C9 Henry vs. Cuyler.
3. I assume the position that the mere circumstance that the verdict was for a greater sum than the damages laid in the declaration, ought not to he sufficient ground for reversing the judgment.
4. The affidavit of the attorney o'f record filed in this court shows that it was by his mere oversight and default that the damages laid in the declaration were less than the amount found by the jury. And it is expressly enacted by the legislature that the judgment shall not be reversed for any default or negligence of the attorney, by which neither party shall have been prejudiced. Code of 1845, p. 827-8 sec. 7.

Opinion:
Judge Napton
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the damages found by the jury, exceeded those laid in the declaration, and the judgment was in accordance with the verdict. There was no motion in arrest in the court below. In accordance with the previous decisions of this court, the judgment must be reversed. Carr vs. Edwards I Mo. R. 137.