Dinwiddie v. Jacobs
Citation | 82 Mo. 195 |
Parties | DINWIDDIE v. JACOBS et al., Appellants. |
Decision Date | 30 April 1884 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court.--HON. G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Turner & Douglass for appellants.
A. M. Hough and Wellington Gordon for respondent.
This was a petition for an injunction, which upon final hearing was made perpetual against all the defendants except Francis M. Grimes, from which judgment defendants appeal to this court.
There is no entry of record showing that any bill of axceptions was filed, or signed. No order of the court is in the record, granting leave, or fixing any time to file a bill of exceptions. In what purports to be a bill of exceptions it appears that “by consent, leave is granted defendants to present their bill of exceptions to counsel for plaintiff within fifty days after this term, and that said bill of exceptions shall be filed in this court within eighty days after the close of this term, and when so filed, to be taken and held as filed as of the present term of this court.” This is all. And this not in the record proper. No filing is marked on the bill itself, and no minute or entry on the record that it is, or was filed.
In Pope v. Thomson, 66 Mo. 661, it is held that: The same rule is laid down in Eau Claire Lumber Co. v. Howard, 76 Mo. 517; McGrew v. Foster, 66 Mo. 30.
Upon examination of the record the court seems to have had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and the petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Co. v. Turner
...v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Allen v. Funk, 85 Mo.App. 460; Ferguson v. Thatcher, 79 Mo. 511; Jaco v. Railroad, 94 Mo.App. 567; Dinwiddie v. Jacobs, 82 Mo. 195; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Williams, 91 Mo.App. St. Charles ex rel. v. Deemar, 174 Mo. 122; Railroad v. Wyatt, 223 Mo. 347; Alt v. Din......
-
State ex rel. Highway Comm. v. Trimble
......Hutson v. Allen, 236 Mo. 645; McGrew v. Foster, 66 Mo. 30; Dinwoody v. Jacobs, 82 Mo. 195; Alt v. Dines, 227 Mo. 418; Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341; Middleton v. Johnson, 242 S.W. 696; State ex inf. Barrett v. Parrish, 270 S.W. ......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Trimble
...... does not prove the filing. Hutson v. Allen, 236 Mo. 645; McGrew v. Foster. 66 Mo. 30; Dinwoody v. Jacobs, 82 Mo. 195; Alt v. Dines, 227 Mo. 418;. Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341; Middleton v. Johnson, 242 S.W. 696; State ex inf. Barrett v. Parrish, 270 ......
-
Burdoin v. The Town of Trenton
...v. Vaughan, 44 Mo.App. 549; Hicks v. Hoos, 44 Mo.App. 571-7; Spencer v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 500; Johnson v. Greenleaf, 73 Mo. 671; Dinwiddie v. Jacobs, 82 Mo. 195; Robart Long, 65 Mo. 223; State v. Duckworth, 68 Mo. 156; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570; State v. Mayor, 99 Mo. 570; Webster Co. v. Cun......