Ford v. Thayer-Moore Brokerage Co.

• Citation: 197 S.W. 339
• Decision Date: 16 July 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18524.,18524.
• Parties: FORD et al. v. THAYER-MOORE BROKERAGE CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

197 S.W. 339

FORD et al. v. THAYER-MOORE BROKERAGE CO.

No. 18524.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

July 16, 1917.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Kimbrough Stone, Judge.

Proceedings by Mary L. Ford and another against the Thayer-Moore Brokerage Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Grant I. Rosenzweig and Charles E. McCoy, both of Kansas City, for appellant. Gilmore & Brown, of Kansas City, for respondents.

WILLIAMS, J.

By this, a proceeding in equity, instituted in the circuit court of Jackson county, plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendant the sum of $2,980, and to compel the defendant to deliver to plaintiff Mary L. Ford a deed already executed by it, conveying a certain lot in Kansas City, Mo., and also to compel the defendant to complete the execution of and to deliver to plaintiff Willie Ford a deed to a certain other described lot in Kansas City, Mo. Upon the trial below, judgment and decree was entered in favor of plaintiffs and thereupon defendant duly appealed.

Upon examining appellant's printed abstract of the record we are unable to identify the portion intended as an abstract of the bill of exceptions. Matters which ordinarily are included in an abstract of a bill of exceptions and matters ordinarily included in the abstract of the record proper are so commingled as to make it impossible for us to tell where the one leaves off or where the other begins. In fact, no part of the present printed abstract is, in any manner, designated as the bill of exceptions. Absent an identification or proper designation of the bill of exceptions in the abstract, we are at a loss to ascertain whether the matters of exception now urged were properly preserved for review in the bill of exceptions. Under such circumstances, the long-existing and well-settled rule is that our review must be confined to the record proper. St. Louis v. Young, 248 Mo. 346, loc. cit. 347, 348, 154 S. W. 87; Keaton v. Weber, 233 Mo. 691, loc. cit. 694, 136 S. W. 342; Kolokas v. Railroad, 223 Mo. 455, loc. cit. 461, 122 S. W. 1082; State ex rel. v. Adkins, 221 Mo. 112, loc. cit. 120, 119 S. W. 1091; Barham v. Shelton, 221 Mo. 66, loc. cit. 70, 119 S. W. 1089; Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561, loc. cit. 564, 111 S. W. 1131; Gilchrist v. Bryant, 213 Mo. 442, 111 S. W. 1128; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442, loc. cit. 449, 102 S. W. 992; Clay v. Union Wholesale Pub. Co., 200 Mo. 665, loc. cit. 672, 98 S. W. 575; State v. Baty, 166 Mo. 561, loc. cit. 563, 66 S. W. 428; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 412, 63 S. W. 808. In the case of St. Louis v. Young, supra, 248 Mo. loc. cit. 347, 348, 154 S. W. 87, it was said:

"The abstract is constructed on a plan steadily condemned by this court as so inherently bad as to be fatally defective,...