Atchison v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 72 S.W. 489,94 Mo. App. 572 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1902 |
| Parties | ATCHISON v. CHICAGO & A. RY. CO. |
Appeal from circuit court, Audrain county; Elliott M. Hughes, Judge.
Action by Harry Atchison against the Chicago & Alton Railway Company. Affirmed.
F. Houston, for appellant. P. H. Cullen, R. D. Rodgers, and E. S. Gantt, for respondent.
A rehearing was granted in this cause, with leave to appellant to file amended abstracts of record. This has been done, showing that the motion for new trial was filed in proper time, the date of the filing of the petition and the answer, and that certain extensions of time to file bill of exceptions were granted by the court. These additional abstracts show that on the 25th day of April, 1901, being the last day of the January term, 1901, of the Audrain circuit court, and within the time granted to file bill of exceptions, the following proceedings were had in open court: Defendant tendered to the court so much of his bill of exceptions as was prepared by the court stenographer, including all the evidence taken at the trial, which partial bill of exceptions was signed by the court. The court ordered said bill to be filed and made a part of the record in the case, and thereupon granted defendant 10 days to file the remainder of its bill of exceptions. Afterwards, to wit, on the 29th day of April, 1901, defendant filed the remainder of its bill of exceptions. Plaintiff in his additional abstracts denies that there is any record entry showing that the remainder of the bill of exceptions was filed in the cause on the 29th day of April or on any other day.
Supposing defendant's abstracts to be correct, then we have this state of facts in respect to the bill of exceptions, to wit: On April 23d an incomplete bill of exceptions was, in open court, examined, approved, and signed by the judge, and ordered to be made a part of the record (what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City v. Jones Store Co.
...Co., 204 Mo. 166; Smith v. Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 6 S.W. (2d) 926; Keet & Roundtree D.G. Co. v. Williams, 202 S.W. 621; Atchison v. Ry. Co., 94 Mo. App. 572. (6) The trial court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibit 3, transcript of stenographic notes, and the parol testimony of R.C.......
-
Kansas City v. Jones Store Co.
...... Co., 204 Mo. 166; Smith v. Millers' Mut. Fire. Ins. Co., 6 S.W.2d 926; Keet & Roundtree D. G. Co. v. Williams, 202 S.W. 621; Atchison v. Ry. Co., . 94 Mo.App. 572. (6) The trial court erred in admitting in. evidence Exhibit 3, transcript of stenographic notes, and the. parol ... judice . St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 Mo. 262;. Myers v. Williams, 199 Mo.App. 21, 199 S.W. 566;. Schulte v. Currey, 173 Mo.App. 578; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Young, 96 Mo. 39; K. C. St. Joseph & C. B. Railroad Co. v. Campbell, Nelson & Co., . 62 Mo. 585; Ellis v. Pac. ......
-
State ex rel. Elberta Peach & Land Company v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Company
...... court thereby loses its jurisdiction in the matter of. allowing a bill of exceptions; and cannot thereafter amend. such bill of exceptions so filed or allow the filing of a new. one. Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390; Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 577; Coy v. Landers, 146 Mo.App. 413; Atchison v. Chicago & Alton Ry. Co., 94 Mo.App. 572; City of Weston v. Bank of Greene Co., 192 S.W. 126; State ex rel. v. Tower Grove Verien, 206 S.W. 242. (5) The statute in reference to penalty for vexatious. delay, Laws 1911, p. 282, applies only to actions against. insurance companies upon ......
-
Manthey v. Kellerman Contracting Co.
...included in one bill. "The law now only allows one bill of exceptions." Dougherty v. Whitehead, 31 Mo. loc. cit. 257; Atchison v. Railroad, 94 Mo. App. 572, 72 S. W. 489; Pace v. Shoe Co., 103 Mo. App. 668, 78 S. W. 52. The closing sentence of section 1460, R. S. 1919, is as "All exceptions......