Dickey v. Webster County

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHenwood
Citation300 S.W. 1086
Decision Date31 December 1927
PartiesDICKEY v. WEBSTER COUNTY.
300 S.W. 1086
DICKEY
v.
WEBSTER COUNTY.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
December 31, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County.

Action by Samuel N. Dickey, on whose death Charles W. Dickey, administrator of the estate of Samuel N. Dickey, deceased, was substituted as plaintiff, against Webster County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Edwin W. Mills, of Marshfield, for appellant.

Haymes & Dickey, of Springfield, for respondent.

HENWOOD, C.


The original plaintiff in this case, Samuel N. Dickey, filed suit against Webster county, Missouri, in the circuit court of that county for the balance alleged to be due and owing to him on his salary as prosecuting attorney of the county. He died on December 13, 1925, and the cause was revived in the name of his son and administrator, Chas. W. Dickey. In his amended petition, the administrator seeks to recover the sum of $737.89, as the total of the monthly balances alleged to be due on said salary, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. On the administrator's motion, certain parts of the county's answer were stricken out. The administrator then moved for judgment on the pleadings and stipulations. This motion, also, was sustained and judgment rendered in favor of the administrator for the sum of $737.89. After its motion for a new trial was overruled, the county appealed but filed no bill of exceptions.

The abstract of the record filed by appellant, in connection with its brief and argument, consists of the respondent's amended petition, appellant's answer to said petition, a stipulation signed by the parties, in which they agree that certain facts shall be considered as true and correct, respondent's motion to strike out certain parts of appellant's answer and the court's order sustaining the same, respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings and stipulations and the judgment rendered, appellant's motion for a new trial and the court's order overruling the same, and appellant's application for an appeal and the court's order granting appellant an appeal to this court. In connection with his brief and argument, respondent filed an additional abstract of the record, which consists only of appellant's answer as it appears when the parts stricken out are omitted. Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case "for the reason that the appellant in its brief has not furnished the court with a clear and concise statement of the points intended to be insisted on in the argument, and has not set forth the errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court as is required by the statutes of the state of Missouri and by Rule No. 15 of this court." This motion, by order of the court, was taken as submitted with the case.

I. Our examination of appellant's brief discloses that it is subject to some criticism in the particulars mentioned in respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal. However, under the view of the case expressed by counsel for appellant, his brief, taken as a whole, complies, substantially, with the rules of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • State v. Settle, No. 31442.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 17, 1932
    ...such cases are part of the record proper. Home Ins. Co. v. Power & Light Co., 39 S.W. (2d) 1039; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 820, 300 S.W. 1086; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 686; State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 9; State v. Earll, 225 Mo. 537. (3) The information fairly advises the defenda......
  • Syz v. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, No. 27165.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1929
    ...[Williams v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. (Ct. en Banc), 320 Mo. 46, 6 S.W. (2d) 929, 931; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 821, 825, 300 S.W. 1086.] It is the law that matters of exception cannot be considered on appeal unless they have first been brought to the attention of the trial court by ......
  • Clark Real Est. Co. v. Investment Co., No. 31584.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1934
    ...(2d) 1033, 1035; Home Insurance Company v. Mo. Power & Light Co., 327 Mo. 1201, 39 S.W. (2d) 1039; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 821, 300 S.W. 1086; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 266 Mo. 423, 181 S.W. In the instant case, defendants' affirmative answer denied that plaintiff owned the proper......
  • Home Ins. Co. v. Mo. Power & Light Co., No. 29661.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 5, 1931
    ...216 Mo. 685; Bick v. Dry, 134 Mo. App. 589; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 21; Mumford v. Keet, 71 Mo. App. 536; Dickey v. Webster County, 300 S.W. 1086. (2) Motions and demurrers seek different remedies. A motion seeks some order of court falling short of the dignity of a judgment; a demurrer ra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • State v. Settle, No. 31442.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 17, 1932
    ...such cases are part of the record proper. Home Ins. Co. v. Power & Light Co., 39 S.W. (2d) 1039; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 820, 300 S.W. 1086; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 686; State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 9; State v. Earll, 225 Mo. 537. (3) The information fairly advises the defenda......
  • Syz v. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, No. 27165.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1929
    ...[Williams v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co. (Ct. en Banc), 320 Mo. 46, 6 S.W. (2d) 929, 931; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 821, 825, 300 S.W. 1086.] It is the law that matters of exception cannot be considered on appeal unless they have first been brought to the attention of the trial court by ......
  • Clark Real Est. Co. v. Investment Co., No. 31584.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1934
    ...(2d) 1033, 1035; Home Insurance Company v. Mo. Power & Light Co., 327 Mo. 1201, 39 S.W. (2d) 1039; Dickey v. Webster County, 318 Mo. 821, 300 S.W. 1086; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 266 Mo. 423, 181 S.W. In the instant case, defendants' affirmative answer denied that plaintiff owned the proper......
  • Home Ins. Co. v. Mo. Power & Light Co., No. 29661.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 5, 1931
    ...216 Mo. 685; Bick v. Dry, 134 Mo. App. 589; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 21; Mumford v. Keet, 71 Mo. App. 536; Dickey v. Webster County, 300 S.W. 1086. (2) Motions and demurrers seek different remedies. A motion seeks some order of court falling short of the dignity of a judgment; a demurrer ra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT