Halstead v. Stone

• Decision Date: 15 February 1899
• Citation: 49 S.W. 850,147 Mo. 649
• Parties: HALSTEAD v. STONE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 S.W. 850

147 Mo. 649

HALSTEAD v. STONE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 15, 1899.

APPEAL — TRANSCRIPT AND STATEMENT — SUFFICIENCY.

Sup. Ct. Rule 13 (16 S. W. vi.), provides that the abstract on appeal shall set forth so much of the record as is necessary to a complete understanding of all the questions presented for decision; that only the substance of the pleadings need be set forth where no question is raised concerning them; that the evidence of witnesses shall be stated in narrative form, except when the questions and answers are necessary to a complete understanding of the evidence; and that where there is any question on the pleadings, or as to the admissibility or legal effect of any documentary evidence, the pleadings and such evidence must be set out in full. Rev. St. 1889, § 2301, requires each party to furnish the court with a clear and concise statement of the case. Held that, where there is a manifest failure to comply with these provisions, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from circuit court, Howell county; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Ejectment by John Halstead against Elmer Stone and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

This case is here on a complete transcript. Appellant has filed a printed document, which is stated on the cover to be, "Appellant's Abstract and Brief," and which inside the cover is styled, "Appellant's Abstract and Brief. Statement," and which is as follows: "Appellant's Abstract and Brief. Statement. This is an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of a piece of land in West Plains, Mo., described in the petition by metes and bounds, but designated on the town plat as `Dr. Shuttee.' It is situated just west of and adjoining lot 4 in block 1 of Curry's addition to West Plains, Mo. The petition is in the usual form. Boqua, Frank Halstead, and Orr were made defendants, because they were tenants of defendant Stone, and occupied portions of the land in question. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and on issues between plaintiff and defendant Elmer Stone. Both parties claim title through Frank T. Blackiston. Defendant admitted being in possession at the institution of the suit. Defendant Stone's first answer was a general denial only, and on this answer the case went to trial, and upon this answer the evidence of both parties was introduced; but after the trial had ended, and the case had been submitted to the court, the court permitted the defendant to file amended answer, in which amended answer Stone sets up equitable title, and tenders other issues, viz. that he (Stone) was, at the time plaintiff obtained his deed from Blackiston, in actual possession of the land, claiming title, and that plaintiff knew this; that plaintiff knew, before purchasing, that Stone had bought the land, and claimed, not only said lot 4, but also the Shuttee lot. Stone's contention is that he bought of Blackiston, not only lot 4, but also the Shuttee lot; but, by mistake or something else, the land (both lots) was described in the two deeds — one from Blackiston to Benson, and the other from Benson to Stone — as lot 4. Plaintiff introduced deeds and records showing title in himself of the Shuttee lot, — the lot in question, — described by metes and bounds. Stone introduced deeds and records showing title in him to lot 4, and nothing else, — an entirely different piece of land from the Shuttee lot, the land in question. Plaintiff showed a perfect record title to the lot in question. No declarations of law were asked by either side, and none were given. A part of the plat of said Curry's addition is contained in the bill of exceptions, showing the location of said lot 4, and also the Shuttee lot, the land in question. Defendant Stone, over plaintiff's objection, was permitted to introduce as evidence a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer suit, between Stone and plaintiff, in regard to the land in question. Plaintiff makes no claim whatever to said lot 4. It will be perceived from the record evidence that the deed from Blackiston to plaintiff is a warranty deed." Respondent insists that the appeal be dismissed for failure to comply with ...