Dalton v. Register
| Decision Date | 28 February 1913 |
| Parties | DALTON v. REGISTER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Henry L. Bright, Judge.
Action by W. H. Dalton against A. L. Register, doing business as A. L. Register & Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Edward C. Wright, of Kansas City, Mo., and Perkins & Blair, of Carthage, for appellant. H. S. Miller and Hugh Dabbs, both of Joplin, for respondent.
In this case the respondent has challenged the sufficiency of the abstract of record. Upon that challenge he stands, and has not briefed the case upon the merits. We are of opinion that we cannot consider more than the record proper, and are precluded from going into matters of exceptions. The abstract of the record proper before us fails to show the filing of a motion for new trial. It is true that in the abstract of a purported bill of exceptions, it appears that such a motion was filed, but in a line of cases we have held this insufficient. These cases are of such long standing and so numerous that the lawyers of the state must abide by them; and so consistent in ruling that we shall not further restate the rule, other than to state that under these we have held that the abstract of the record proper, as distinguished from the abstract of the bill of exceptions, must show the filing and overruling of a motion for new trial. And if it does not show this, then we have only the record proper before us for consideration.
It is true that we have recently adopted a new rule of practice in this court, which we hope may be better understood and more generally followed than the one under which the cases suggested were decided, but this new rule cannot avail this appellant, for two reasons: (1) Because his abstract was filed before the rule was adopted by the court; and (2) because the abstract as filed does not comply either with the old or new rule.
Having before us nothing but the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motor Acceptance, Inc. v. Phillips
...trial or a motion for rehearing in the circuit court. Schuchort v. Brasler, 249 S.W. 164; Grossman v. Railroad, 248 Mo. 152; Dalton v. A.L. Register Co., 248 Mo. 150; Maplegreen Co. v. Trust Co., 237 Mo. 150; Holt v. Shryrock-Wright Grocery Co., 1 S.W. (2nd) 849; Hume v. Hathaway, 249 S.W. ......
-
State ex rel. Caruthers v. Little River Drainage District
...was filed. The bill of exceptions shows the filing of such a motion, but that is not sufficient. Case v. Carland, 264 Mo. 463; Dalton v. Register Co., 248 Mo. 150; Clark v. Clark, 191 Mo.App. 278; Walker v. Fritz, 166 Mo.App. 317; Rule 31, Supreme Court. (2) The temporary writ was properly ......
-
State v. Little River Drainage Dist.
...where the appeal is perfected by the filing of a perfect transcript. Case v. Carland, 264 Mo. 463, 175 S. W. 200; Dalton v. Register Co., 248 Mo. 150, 154 S. W. 67; Kuczma v. Droszkowski, 243 Mo. 57, 147 S. W. Where, however, the appeal is perfected by the filing of an abstract preceded as ......
-
Southwest Nat. Bank v. McDermand
...195 Mo. 511, 94 S. W. 518; Hogan v. Hinchey, 195 Mo. 527, 94 S. W. 522; Grossman v. Railroad, 248 Mo. 152, 154 S. W. 66; Dalton v. Register, 24S Mo. 150, 154 S. W. 67; State v. Scobee, 255 Mo. 270, 164 S. W. 198; Case v. Garland, 175 S. W. 200; Clark v. Clark, 177 S. W. 1077, decided by thi......