Coffield v. Lindell

• Decision Date: 03 January 1928
• Docket Number: No. 15858.,15858.
• Citation: 1 S.W.2d 848
• Parties: COFFIELD v. LINDELL et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

1 S.W.2d 848

COFFIELD v. LINDELL et al.

No. 15858.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 3, 1928.

Rehearing Denied January 23, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Maud M. Coffield against L. V. Lindell and another, doing business as the Broadway Doll & Statuary Company. From the action of the court in sustaining plaintiff's motion to affirm a judgment of a justice of the peace recovered by plaintiff against the defendants, defendant named appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Samuel Eppstein, of Kansas City, for appellant.

A. E. Watson, of Kansas City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendant, L. V. Lindell, from the action of the court in sustaining plaintiff's motion to affirm a judgment of a justice of the peace, recovered by plaintiff against the defendants.

Appellant has filed here a document entitled "Bill of Exceptions, Abstract, and Brief on Behalf of Defendant, L. V. Lindell." In this document matters that should appear in the abstract of the record proper and bill of exceptions are so commingled that it is impossible to tell the record proper from the bill of exceptions. There is no distinction made whatever between the abstract of the record proper and the bill of exceptions — no separate headings of any kind. Everything contained in the document is under but one heading, and that as we have quoted. Under the circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.

"It has often been ruled by the courts that the abstract of the record proper and the bill of exceptions must be distinct so that they may be clearly distinguished, and if the abstract is presented in such shape that one cannot be distinguished from the other it will be deemed insufficient. Barham v. Shelton, 221 Mo. 66, 70, 119 S. W. 1089, and cases therein cited; Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341, 132 S. W. 665." State ex rel. v. Victory Home Owners' Savings & Loan Co. of America (Mo. App.) 291 S. W. 1080, 1081.

In no event could we dispose of the point sought to be raised in this appeal which is founded upon a proper construction of rule 22 of the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo. Said rule nowhere appears in the document filed here by the appellant, and we do not take judicial notice of such rules. Fox-Miller Grain Co. v. Stephans (Mo. App.) 217 S. W. 994. The presumption is that the action of the court was proper. McFarland v. Lasswell (Mo. App.) 282 S. W. 447, 448.

The appeal...