31 Mo.App. 131 (Mo.App. 1888), Guinn v. Boas

Citation:31 Mo.App. 131
Opinion Judge:PHILIPS, P. J.
Party Name:JOHN C. GUINN, Respondent, v. JACOB BOAS, et al., Appellants.
Attorney:HAUGHAWONT & GRAY, for the appellant. PHELPS & BROWN, for the respondent.
Case Date:May 10, 1888
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 131

31 Mo.App. 131 (Mo.App. 1888)

JOHN C. GUINN, Respondent,


JACOB BOAS, et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City.

May 10, 1888

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court, HON. M. G. MCGREGOR, Judge.


The case is stated in the opinion.

HAUGHAWONT & GRAY, for the appellant.

The point that the appeal should be dismissed for the failure to set out all the evidence in our brief and abstract of the record is not well taken. We understand the only object of this rule is, that in case respondent files no brief then this court will not have to go to the transcript and look over a lot of non-essential matter to obtain the desired information. Appellants' statement and abstract of the record sets out in haec verba, all the evidence of any ratification as required by law, that was introduced in evidence, and were it not for the incorrect and misleading statements made in respondent's brief it would not be necessary for the court to go to the transcript to reverse this judgment. We could, in this reply, set out the evidence complained of in respondent's brief, but as we differ so materially as to what the evidence is, it will be necessary for the court to examine the transcript.

PHELPS & BROWN, for the respondent.

I. Defendants' appeal should be dismissed, because appellants have failed to comply with rule fifteen of this court, which requires that every part of the transcript relied upon as error, and all that is necessary to show it such, must be printed in the abstract. When no point is made on the sufficiency of the evidence, it will be enough to set forth its tendency. But when the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned, so much of the transcript as contains all of the evidence on that question must be set out in the transcript in haec verba. Goodson v. Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 73; Hausmann v. Hope, 20 Mo.App. 173.

II. The controlling question in this case, and the only point made by appellants, is, that the evidence was not sufficient to show a ratification by defendant on attaining majority of his note made during his minority. The appellants should have set out in their abstract in haec verba so much of the transcript as contained all the evidence on that question. Such evidence is of vital importance in determining whether or not the action of the trial court in refusing to sustain defendants' demurrer to the...

To continue reading