Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Min. Co.
Decision Date | 01 July 1892 |
Citation | 111 Mo. 279,20 S.W. 25 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | GARRETT v. KANSAS CITY COAL MIN. CO.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Action by Lewis C. Garrett against the Kansas City Coal Mining Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendant appeals. The case comes up on motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a complete abstract.
Warner, Dean & Hagerman, for appellant. Lipscomb & Rust and John W. Beebe, for respondent.
Respondent files a motion herein, suggesting the insufficiency of the abstract of the record filed by appellant under rule 13 of this court, (16 S. W. Rep. vi.,) and insists that the appeal should be dismissed, or the judgment affirmed as of a total failure to comply with said rule. The case was argued and submitted on its merits, attorneys for respondent, on argument, renewing the objection on account of the alleged insufficiency of the abstract, but neither in motion nor on argument specifically pointing out material omissions from the evidence, nor did he undertake to supply the omissions by an additional or counter abstract. These objections require an interpretation of the rule, or rather the determination of its practical application. Rule 13 provides that Rule 12 provides that respondent may, if he desire to do so, file a further or additional abstract, and rule 16 (16 S. W. Rep. vi.) provides that, if any appellant in any civil case shall fail to comply with the rules requiring abstracts to be filed, the court, when the cause is called for hearing, will dismiss the appeal or writ of error; or, at the option of the respondent, continue the cause at the costs of the party in default.
The record in this case shows that the suit was in equity, involving a question of fraud, and contains 275 typewritten pages, a large portion of it being the testimony of witnesses. The abstract contains 47 printed pages, about 17 of which are taken up in pleadings and documentary evidence. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Parrish
...148 Mo. 334, 49 S. W. 984; Halstead v. Stone, 147 Mo. 649, 49 S. W. 850; Brand v. Cannon, 118 Mo. 595, 24 S. W. 434; Garrett v. Coal Mining Co., 111 Mo. 279, 20 S. W. 25; Cunningham v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 208, 19 S. W. III. Rule 15 of this court, among other things, provides that: "The brief ......
-
Hermann Savings Bank v. Kropp
...110 Mo. 208, 19 S. W. 822; Thompson v. Allen, 107 Mo. 480, 18 S. W. 35; Snyder v. Free, 102 Mo. 325, 14 S. W. 875; Garrett v. Mining Co., 111 Mo. 279, 20 S. W. 25; Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Bean, 152 Mo. App. 703, 133 S. W. 112) there can be no manner of doubt, also that the practice ......
-
Herman Savings Bank v. Kropp
... ... 35; Snyder v. Free, 102 Mo. 325, 14 ... S.W. 875; Garrett v. Mining Co., 111 Mo. 279, 20 ... S.W. 25; [266 Mo. 221] ... the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of Mattenlee ... v ... ...
-
In re Paige's Estate
... ... v. Long, 35 S.C. 585, 14 S.E. 24; Garret v. Kansas ... City Coal M. Co., 111 Mo. 279, 20 S.W. 25; Cason v ... sec. 4456, subd. 2; Williams ... v. Boise Basin Min. & Development Co., 11 Idaho 233, 81 ... ...