Dameron v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 08 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 12981.,12981. |
| Citation | 225 S.W. 110 |
| Parties | DAMERON v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; V. L. Drain, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by W. T. Dameron against John N. Hamilton. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Whitecotton & Wight, of Moberly, and Dan R. Hughes, John R. Hughes, and Otho Matthews, all of Macon, for appellant.
J. P. Boyd, of Paris, and Guthrie & Franklin, of Macon, for respondent.
This is an action for libel, Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $500, and defendant has appealed.
Section 2080, R. S. 1909, provides that the appellant shall "make out and furnish the court with a clear and concise statement of the case." Rule 16 of this court (169 S. W. xvii) provides that appellant shall file a statement, which "shall consist of a clear and concise statement of the case without argument, reference to issues of law or repetition of testimony of witnesses." The statement filed by appellant in this case contains the information that the suit had been tried three times, appealed to the Supreme Court once, and there had been several changes of venue. But there is nothing contained in the statement to give us any understanding of the case now before us, except that it is a suit for libel; that there had been a verdict for $500, and defendant has appealed. The "statement" says:
"The testimony fully discloses the relations of the parties and the circumstances which led up to the alleged libelous publication."
It also tells us where in the record to find the pleadings.
The brief contains a great many points, one of which is that defendant's demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. Yet, reading the brief from cover to cover, no information is given us regarding the facts of the case, nor could we get any understanding of it without going to the record, where we are directed by appellant, which consists of 300 pages. The statute and the rule were passed for the purpose of, requiring counsel to file a statement, giving the court a fair understanding of the case, so that a laborious searching of the record would be obviated. The rule is important, in that a compliance with it saves the court's much needed time, in view of the press of business. There has been no compliance with the statute or the rule, either in letter or in spirit, and as a consequence the appeal must be dismissed. Mills v. McDaniels, 59...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. And To Use of Kansas City Light & Power Co. v. Trimble
... ... S.W. 586; Fowles v. Clover Co., 205 S.W. 874; ... Dodson v. Karshmer Co., 204 S.W. 590; Robinson ... v. Slater, 209 S.W. 557; Dameron v. Hamilton, ... 225 S.W. 110; Hartweg v. Rys. Co., 231 S.W. 269; ... Malone v. Rys. Co., 232 S.W. 782; Mathews v ... O'Donnell, 233 S.W. 451 ... ...
- The State ex rel. Mulvoy v. Miller
-
Farm Mortgage & Loan Co. v. Schbert.
...statute or the rules, and, in consequence, the penalty provided in our rule 18 must be invoked, and the appeal dismissed. Dameron v. Hamilton (Mo. App.) 225 S. W. 110; Morris v. Gutshall (Mo. App.) 226 S. W. 589; Marks v. Phonograph Co. (Mo. App.) 236 S. W. 900; Gillette v. Laederich (Mo. A......
-
Marks v. Acme Phonograph Co.
...(169 S. W. xiv) and section 1511, R. S. 1919. Royal v. K. C. Western Ry. Co., 190 S. W. 573; Robinson v. Slater, 209 S. W. 557; Dameron v. Hamilton, 225 S. W. 110; Mills v. McDaniels, 59 Mo. App. 331; Fowles v. Clover Leaf Casualty Co., 205 S. W. 874; Hartweg v. K. C. Rys. Co., 231 S. W. Af......