Hughes v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 02 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 25454,25454
• Citation: Hughes v. Wilson, 485 S.W.2d 620 (Mo. App. 1972)
• Parties: Charles J. HUGHES et al., Respondents, v. Carl E. WILSON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 620

485 S.W.2d 620

Charles J. HUGHES et al., Respondents, v. Carl E. WILSON, Appellant.

No. 25454.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Oct. 2, 1972.

James G. Trimble, James, McFarland, Trimble & Austin, North Kansas City, for appellant.

Robert I. Adelman, Kansas City, for respondents.

SHANGLER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs contracted with defendant for the construction of a house. A dispute arose, plaintiffs contending that defendant had failed to perform according to the contract terms, and defendant contending for compensation beyond the contract price for extra work done and materials furnished. Plaintiffs sued for damages for expenditures made necessary to complete the contract and defendant counterclaimed for the value of the extra work and materials. A jury returned a verdict of $1000 for plaintiffs on their petition and denied defendant relief on his counterclaim. Defendant has appealed from the money judgment but raises no further issue as to the counterclaim.

The defendant, now appellant, tenders three incidences of trial error, but we do not reach their merits because his brief is so deficient as to render any conscientious review unreasonably burdensome. In such circumstances, even in the absence of a motion from respondent, the ends of the administration of justice require that we put in motion the dismissal of this appeal.

Although the jurisdictional statement adequately conforms to the requirements of the governing rule, in every other particular appellant's brief violates the applicable requirements of appellate practice. Civil Rule 84.04(c), V.A.M.R., specifies that '(t)he statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument'. The transcript testimony, which ranges over more than two hundred pages, is reduced essentially to this Statement of Facts in appellant's brief: 'Plaintiffs' case consisted entirely of testimony of plaintiff Charles J. Hughes (TR 23 through 97), and defendant presented testimony in person and by numerous witnesses'. The deficiency is blatant: No testimonial facts are given, thus depriving the reviewing court of the indispensible predicate for the determination of the legal propositions presented. While some scant reference to the trial evidence is made in the Argument portion of the brief, except for one instance, there is neither transcript page reference nor other attribution in violation of Civil Rule 84.04(h), V.A.M.R.

Moving next to appellant's Points Relied On, the first is given as: 'The verdict was not supported by competent evidence which the jury could consider under Instruction No. 4 (submitting damages).' Such an assignment presents nothing for appellate review in a jury case. Grubbs v. Myers, Mo.App., 407 S.W.2d 43, 44(2). It wholly fails to comply with Civil Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., which requires the appellant's brief to give '(t)he points relied on (which) shall state briefly and conscisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous'. (Emphasis...