Iba v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
Decision Date | 05 May 1913 |
Citation | 157 S.W. 675,172 Mo.App. 141 |
Parties | MARY IBA, Respondent, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellants |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Original Opinion of May 5, 1913, Reported at: 172 Mo.App. 141.
Motion overruled.
TRIMBLE J. Ellison, P. J., concurs. Johnson, J., having dissented from the original opinion, thinks a rehearing should be granted, but concurs in what is said concerning objectionable language used in motions for rehearing.
OPINIONON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
TRIMBLE J.--Counsel for respondent, in their motion for rehearing contend, with apparent sincerity and much heat, that the appellate court cannot lawfully consider the statements and reasons given by the trial judge, at the time the motion for new trial was passed on, because said statements are no part of the record. The statements of the trial judge in this case were taken down by the stenographer at the time and were duly incorporated in the bill of exceptions and appear in full in the printed abstract of record upon which the case was submitted to us. Passing by the question whether or not this was sufficient to make said statements a part of the record, it may be well to remind counsel of the fact (which they seem to have overlooked or forgotten), that the statements were made a part of the record by express agreement and stipulation on the part of counsel who now complain. The trial court, in overruling the motion for new trial, anounced his view of the case and of the question then before him, and the record shows the following occurred:
In view of the above agreement it is difficult to see how this court could hold that the statements were no part of the record, even had timely objections thereto been made either in brief or in oral argument.
Motions for rehearing are given careful and patient consideration. It is suggested that, in drawing them, it is unnecessary to use extravagant, hasty or intemperate language in describing or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Banner
... ... beer, even at midnight and in company ... [157 S.W. 969] ... with men, is guilty of having ... ...
-
Iba v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
...BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellants Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityMay 5, 1913 Rehearing Denied 172 Mo.App. 141 at 161. from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. W. D. Rusk, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Culver, Phillip & Spencer and O. M. Spencer for appellants. (1) ......