Clements v. Turner

• Decision Date: 14 May 1901
• Citation: 162 Mo. 466,63 S.W. 84
• Parties: CLEMENTS v. TURNER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

63 S.W. 84

162 Mo. 466

CLEMENTS v. TURNER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 14, 1901.

APPEAL — ABSTRACT OF RECORD — SUFFICIENCY — JUDGMENT — REVIEW.

1. Supreme court rules 12 and 13 (16 S. W. vi.) require an abstract of the complete record to be filed, which shall set forth so much of the record as is necessary to a full and complete understanding of all the questions presented. Appellant in ejectment failed to file an abstract, but filed a statement setting out that W., a married woman, owed G. a note, and at the time of its execution owned certain separate property, which she sold, and invested the proceeds in the real estate in dispute; that G. recovered judgment, subjecting such real estate to its payment; that W. appealed, and pending the appeal plaintiff purchased the land at sheriff's sale, without notice of the appeal; that defendant traded for the property with notice of the suit, and prosecuted the appeal in W.'s name; and that case was reversed. Held, that such statement, though it be allowed to stand for an abstract, is insufficient.

2. Where there is substantial evidence to support the judgment of the trial court on questions of fact, the same will not be reviewed on appeal.

Appeal from Louisiana court of common pleas; Reuben F. Roy, Judge.

Action by W. R. Clements against S. J. Turner and another. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Pearson & Pearson and Ball & Sparrow, for appellant. J. D. Hostetter, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J.

There is a total failure in this case to comply with rules 12 and 13 of this court. The case is here upon a complete transcript, and the appellant has wholly failed to file any abstract of the record whatever. He has filed a statement, but even that fails to state the nature of this suit, or the substance of the pleadings, or when or where it was instituted or tried, or what, if any, judgment was rendered, or what proceedings were had in the case, or whether a motion for new trial was filed, or whether a bill of exceptions was filed, or whether the case is here by appeal or writ of error, or how it got here. There is an assignment of errors filed, in which it is claimed that the court erred in admitting illegal and improper evidence offered by defendants, and in making its finding and rendering a judgment for defendants, and in not finding the facts for plaintiff. But there is nothing to show what evidence was introduced, or what the facts developed upon the trial were, or what the ruling of the court was upon any question tried. The statement of the appellant, even if it could be allowed to stand for an abstract of the record such as rules 12 and 13 require, is wholly insufficient to give a "full and complete understanding of all the questions presented to this court for decision." The only facts stated are that Mrs. Whitesides, a married woman, owed James B. Grimes a promissory note, dated March 18, 1888, for $299.65; that when she executed the note she owned certain separate estate in Lincoln county, which she sold, and invested the proceeds in the purchase of the real estate here in dispute; that Grimes, administrator, obtained judgment in the circuit court of Pike county against Mrs. Whitesides, "subjecting the real estate here in dispute to the payment of said judgment"; that Mrs. Whitesides appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, without bond; that pending the appeal an execution was issued on the judgment, the land sold, and the plaintiff...