Craig v. Scudder

• Decision Date: 18 November 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 341,98 Mo. 664
• Parties: CRAIG v. SCUDDER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 341

98 Mo. 664

CRAIG v. SCUDDER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 18, 1889.

APPEAL — RECORD.

Under supreme court rule Mo. No. 15, requiring appellants to make an abstract of the record in the cause, setting forth as much thereof as is necessary to a full understanding of all the questions presented to the court for its decision, the court cannot pass upon instructions, where they are not copied in such abstract, and their substance is not given therein.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

Action by Archibald N. Craig against John A. Scudder and William H. Scudder for services rendered. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Smith & Harrison, for appellant. Krum & Jonas and Douglas & Scudder, for respondents.

SHERWOOD, J.

1. Action on a contract for services rendered as clerk of defendants, and the simple issue presented by the pleadings was whether such a contract was made. There was evidence on this point pro and con, and the jury brought in a verdict for the defendants. What the instructions were we are not informed, and so cannot pass upon the propriety of their being given or refused. Our rule 15 requires that the appellant or plaintiffs in error make out "an abstract or abridgement of the record in said cause, setting forth so much thereof as is necessary to a full understanding of all the questions presented to this court for its decision." The instructions are not copied in appellant's abstract, nor is their substance given. The object of our rule is to avoid the necessity of recurring to the record in order to discover whether error has been committed. Under that rule, the abstract stands, and was intended to stand, as a substitute for and in lieu of the record, and we will not examine the latter, but rely upon the former, and upon that decide the cause. Long v. Long, 96 Mo. 180, 8 S. W. Rep. 766; Bank v. Iron Co., 97 Mo. 38, 10 S. W. Rep. 865; Flannery v. Railroad Co., 97 Mo. 192, 10 S. W. Rep. 894; Jayne v. Wine, 11 S. W. Rep. 969.

2. As to the evidence offered of the report of the referee, in order to show what one of the defendants swore on a former occasion and in another cause, such evidence is so clearly hearsay as to require no further comment. We affirm the judgment. All concur, except RAY, C. J., absent.