Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co. v. Organ

• Decision Date: 07 July 1910
• Citation: 149 Mo. App. 102,129 S.W. 1023
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: AULTMAN & TAYLOR MACHINERY CO. v. ORGAN.

129 S.W. 1023

149 Mo. App. 102

AULTMAN & TAYLOR MACHINERY CO. v. ORGAN.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 7, 1910.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 301)—PRESERVATION OF GROUNDS—MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

Where a motion for new trial contains only the ground that the finding of the court was against the law and the evidence, this is insufficient to bring matters of exception to the appellate court for review; the only way for preserving such matters for review being to set them out in the motion.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 581)—"ABSTRACT OF RECORD"—REQUISITES.

The "abstract of the record" must show the judgment, the orders of the filing of a motion for new trial, the rulings of the court thereon, and also that an appeal has been taken.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Action by the Aultman & Taylor Machinery Company against J. E. Organ. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. E. Freeman and H. T. Harrison, for appellant. Arthur & Dalton, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This is an action on promissory notes, tried in the circuit court of Shannon county, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant. After taking the proper preliminary steps, plaintiff appealed to this court. The respondent has filed a printed brief, in which he claims that the appeal should be dismissed because the alleged abstract of the record filed by appellant is insufficient. The appellant complains of many alleged errors of the circuit court during the trial of the case, but its motion for new trial only contains one ground, as follows: "Because the finding of the court was against the law and the evidence." This is wholly insufficient to bring matters of exception to this court for review. State v. Scott, 214 Mo., loc. cit. 261, 113 S. W. 1069. In the case just cited, the court said: "The grounds assigned for a new trial are: That the verdict of the jury is against the law; that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence; that the verdict of the jury is against the law and the evidence. It is well settled that a motion for a new trial must so definitely set out the reasons therefor as to direct the attention of the trial court to the precise error of which complaint is made. The simple assertion that the verdict of the jury is against the law does not indicate wherein it infringes upon the law. It is no ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury that it may be against the evidence. It is only in case there is no...