In re Assignment of Redding

• Decision Date: 13 June 1888
• Citation: 31 Mo.App. 425
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF REDDING BROTHERS; W. W. RUCKER, Assignee, Respondent.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

31 Mo.App. 425

IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF REDDING BROTHERS; W. W. RUCKER, Assignee, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City.

June 13, 1888

Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court, HON. G. D. BURGESS, Judge.

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with rule fifteen.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

CRAWLEY & SON, for the respondent.

I. Respondent insists that under the rules and decisions of this court, the judgment of the circuit court should stand.

II. The pamphlet filed here by appellants presents no abstract of the record as required by rule fifteen. " Every part of the transcript relied upon as error, and all that is relied on to show it such, must be printed in the abstract." Goodson v Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 81; Foster v Trimble, 18 Mo.App. 394; Hansmann v. Hope, 20 Mo.App. 193; Coy v. Robinson, 20 Mo.App. 462; Hyatt v. Wolfe, 22 Mo.App. 192.

III. It does not appear from appellants' pamphlet, what judgment was rendered by the circuit court. The reasons urged in support of the motion for new trial below, are not given; and it does not appear that the circuit court so much as had a guess at any of the points raised in appellants' " brief." There being no assignment of errors, and nothing in the record as presented by appellants to warrant interference with the judgment below, it should, therefore be affirmed. McKenzie v. Railroad, 24 Mo.App. 392; Hansmann v. Hope, 20 Mo.App. 193; Coy v Robinson, 20 Mo.App. 462; Wall v. Ryan, 15 Mo.App. 575; Sass v. Blackman, 8 Mo.App. 565; Cowen v. Shepley, 8 Mo.App. 566; Chappel v. Mulhall, 7 Mo.App. 592; Smith v. Babcock, 3 Mo.App. 595; Thompson v. Brown, 595.

KINLEY & WALLACE, for the appellants.

We presume a correct " narrative" of the abstract and all the evidence in the case, introduced or agreed to, that bears on the matters involved, are all that is necessary to come within the rules of this court. We take it, the rules fixed by statute for the Supreme Court and the St. Louis Court of Appeals as to assignments of error, will be the rule of this court, as we have heretofore followed. See Rev. Stat., secs. 3784, 3785. The abstract of appellants shows that appealing creditors had their claims allowed by the assignee; shows the part of the report of the assignee to which there was objection, viz., the " " fully" satisfying the Kellogg judgments, leaving only $606.75 to be distributed among the remaining creditors, which sum would pay only a small per cent. of their claims, which report was approved by the lower court. The exceptions are given in full, it is true, without attorneys' names printed, but, we take it, that is not material for this court to determine whether the exceptions should have been sustained or not, which exceptions were, by the court overruled, and the referee's report approved by the court--the approval complained of being approving the action of the assignee in paying the Kellogg judgments in full. The creditors filed " motion for rehearing thereon," says the abstract. Rehearing on what? The overruling of the exceptions upon the admitted, bald, undisputed facts; no more, no less. The judgment of the court complained of, was the judgment approving the assignee's report in toto, and not excepting the Kellogg payments. It is true we could have occupied twenty or more pages of closely-printed matter in giving the deed of assignment, the eight judgments, the eight executions, the referee's entire report, the notice given under the statute, and the entire list of claims allowed, which might have better pleased the gentlemen, who toy with an " umbilicus" with such abandon, but would encumbering the record with so much concerning which there is no controversy, have given the court a clearer understanding of what this controversy is, than the statement and abstract we have given? We have given all the evidence, all the contention, the exceptions, the motion for rehearing, which, of course, is for error in overruling the exceptions of appealing creditors, all of which is practically conceded by respondent's counsel as correct, as they furnish no abstract.

HALL J.

This appeal is by...