Harris v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 21 November 1906
• Citation: 199 Mo. 412,97 S.W. 591
• Parties: HARRIS v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

97 S.W. 591

199 Mo. 412

HARRIS v. WILSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

November 21, 1906.

APPEAL—ABSTRACT OF RECORD—SUFFICIENCY.

Where the abstract of record failed to disclose when the suit was instituted, when it was transferred on a change of venue, when the trial was begun, what the court ever did as to entering judgment, who signed and sealed the bill of exceptions, who ordered it filed, when filed, whether the affidavit for appeal was filed at the trial term, it was no such abstract as would authorize the court to go beyond the record proper.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County.

Action by Anna Harris against H. C. Wilson and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Collins & Chappell, for appellants. P. H. Cullen, J. S. McIntyre, and R. D. Rodgers, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

This is an action by plaintiff against the defendants for the wrongful and negligent killing of her husband. Suit was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis at some date, we know not when, and by change of venue the cause reached the circuit of Washington county, the time of which is likewise a mystery so far as the record brought here by appellants is to be looked to for the information. From this purported abstract it appears that some time within the four days next preceding March 12, 1903, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of 5.000; but when this trial began, or what the court ever did as to entering a judgment upon that verdict, this instrument fails to disclose. Respondent says that we have nothing but the record proper before us for consideration; that the alleged abstract of the record in no wise complies with the rule of this court, and fails to properly show the filing of a bill of exceptions. In this view we concur. The document filed as an abstract of record starts with this language: "This was a suit filed in the circuit court, city of St. Louis, and taken by change of venue to the circuit court of Washington county." Then follows the amended petition (presumably the petition upon which case was tried); then a motion to strike out, and the ruling thereon; then an answer; then we find this language: "The venue of the case was changed from the city of St. Louis to Washington county. The plaintiff filed for her replication a general denial of the allegations, of the trial. Trial. The cause came on for hearing before the court and a jury in Washington county, Missouri, and the following proceedings were had as appear from the bill of exceptions duly allowed, signed and filed, to wit." Immediately following is a purported abstract of the evidence for plainti...