Brown v. British Dominions General Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13652.,13652.
• Parties: BROWN v. BRITISH DOMINIONS GENERAL INS. CO., LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

228 S.W. 884

BROWN v. BRITISH DOMINIONS GENERAL INS. CO., LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND.

No. 13652.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

June 23, 1920.

Rehearing Denied October 7, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Daniel E. Bird, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by J. D. Brown against the British Dominions General Insurance Company, Limited, of London, England. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bruce Barnett, of Kansas City, for appellant.

J. D. Brown and J. G. Hutchison, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

This case is companion to the case between the same parties, numbered 13663 (228 S. W. 883), and handed down at this sitting. It grows out of the same suit in the policy of insurance therein set forth. At the oral argument the two were combined, counsel agreeing that the other was the important case and the one upon which the vital issues depend.

That case sought to review, by way of a writ of error, the action of the trial court in overruling defendant's motion to set aside a judgment. This case is an appeal from an order overruling a motion to quash the execution issued on the judgment. So far as concerns the question of whether the judgment is absolutely void, the same matters are involved as in the other case, and what is said in the other opinion applies equally well here, so that, without repeating, we refer to that opinion.

As to any other matters going to the validity of the trial court's action on the motion to quash, we may observe that appellant has not incorporated any bill of exceptions in its abstract of record, and hence there is nothing in the way of matters of exception for us to review. Smith v. Mosely, 234 Mo. 486, 495, 137 S. W. 971; Hemm v. Juede, 153 Mo. App. 259, 267, 133 S. W. 620; City of St. Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 380, 384, 18 S. W. 22.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.