Abbott v. Gillum

• Decision Date: 21 November 1898
• Citation: 146 Mo. 176,47 S.W. 1067
• Parties: ABBOTT v. GILLUM et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 S.W. 1067

146 Mo. 176

ABBOTT v. GILLUM et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 21, 1898.

APPEAL — REVIEW — OVERRULING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — EXCEPTIONS.

Where the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not excepted to, only the record proper can be reviewed.

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; Reuben F. Roy, Judge.

Action by A. G. Abbott against Wright Gillum and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

A. W. Stewart, for appellant. Elliott W. Major and J. D. Hostetter, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action for $5,000 damages for false imprisonment. It was tried before the judge and jury in the circuit court of Pike county, where there were a verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed. While the bill of exceptions discloses that plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, and that it was overruled, it does not show that he excepted to the action of the court in overruling the motion; and under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court, unless an exception be taken and preserved, by bill of exceptions, to the action of the court in overruling a motion for a new trial, there is nothing before the supreme court for review except the record proper. Ross v. Railroad Co., 141 Mo. 390, 38 S. W. 926, and 42 S. W. 957; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 529, 29 S. W. 590; State v. Hitchcock, 86 Mo. 231; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345; Danforth v. Railway Co., 123 Mo. 196, 27 S. W. 715; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316, 16 S. W. 886; McIrvine v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 647; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400. We find no error in the record proper, and therefore affirm the judgment.

GANTT, P. J., and SHERWOOD, J., concur.