Cunningham v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 10 October 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20239.,20239.
• Citation: 215 S.W. 249
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM et al. v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

215 S.W. 249

CUNNINGHAM et al. v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY et al.

No. 20239.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

October 10, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Johnson County; Andrew A. Whitsitt, Judge.

Bill by A. G. Cunningham and others against the Consolidated School District No. 1 of Johnson County, Mo., and others. Decree for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This was a bill in equity filed in the circuit court of Johnson county by the plaintiffs, taxpayers of consolidated school district No. 1, of Johnson county, Mo. against the defendants, the said school district and the collector of the revenues of said county, challenging the validity of the incorporation of said district, and to enjoin the collection of the taxes duly levied by said district with which it was intended to conduct the schools of said district.

The trial in the circuit court resulted in a decree in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed the cause to this court.

Nick M. Bradley and M. D. Aber, both of Warrenburg, for appellants.

W. E. Owen, of Clinton, and W. E. "Suddath, of Warrenburg, for respondents.

WOODSON, J.

At the threshold of the case we are met with the following motion to affirm the judgment of the circuit court because the abstract of the record does not conform to rule 15 of the Rules of this court (198 S. W. vi), viz.:

"(1) Because the abstract of the record proper fails to show that a judgment was rendered by the trial court.

"(2) Because the printed abstract of the record proper shows nothing except the pleadings in the case.

"(3) Because the printed abstract of the record proper fails to show that a motion for a new trial was filed and overruled by the trial court, the only reference to the filing and overruling of the same being in the bill of exceptions.

"(4) Because appellants' brief does not, either distinctly or separately, allege the errors committed by the trial court as required by rule No. 15 of this court.

"(5) Because the abstract of the record proper fails to show a trial, filing of bill of exceptions, or any proceedings in said course, save the pleadings.

"(6) Because said abstract of the record has no index whatever."

After a careful examination of the abstract of the record and a comparison of it with the motion to dismiss, we find that all six of the grounds assigned in the motion to dismiss are well taken; and, under the authority of the cases hereafter cited, we are barred from considering anything contained in the bill of exceptions; and, since the judgment upon the face of the pleadings appear to be fair and proper, we must, under the authorities of the cases mentioned, affirm the judgment; and it is accordingly done, to wit: Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. loc. cit. 343, 132 S. W. 665; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. loc. cit. 625, 100 S. W. 638; Flanagan Milling Co. v. St. Louis, 222 Mo. 306, 121 S. W. 112; Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 150...