Jenkins v. Shannon County

• Decision Date: 01 March 1910
• Citation: 125 S.W. 1100,226 Mo. 187
• Parties: JENKINS v. SHANNON COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

125 S.W. 1100

226 Mo. 187

JENKINS v. SHANNON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 1, 1910.

1. COURTS (§ 231) — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — SUPREME COURT.

Where a county was a party defendant, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, it was properly transferred to the Supreme Court.

2. COURTS (§ 85) — ABSTRACT OF RECORD — BRIEF — CONTENTS — TRANSFER TO SUPREME COURT — WHAT RULES GOVERN.

Where an appeal was improperly taken to the Court of Appeals, and was therefore transferred

to the Supreme Court, and the abstract of record and brief for the appellant were prepared after the cause reached the Supreme Court, the rules of the latter govern as to the contents of the abstract of record.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 592) — ABSTRACT OF RECORD — CONTENTS — FAILURE TO MAKE PROPER ABSTRACT — EFFECT.

Where an appeal to the Supreme Court was taken on a long transcript, and the contents of the bill of exceptions and the proceedings and evidence upon the trial were not abstracted, the court will not examine the transcript to find whether there was proof to sustain the claim as shown by the abstract of the record proper, and where that shows a claim which, if sustained by proof, would warrant the judgment entered, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Action by Clay Jenkins against Shannon County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jas. Orchard, for appellant.

GRAVES, J.

This case reaches us under a mandate of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. A county is the party defendant, and the appeal should have been to this court, and not to the Court of Appeals. The case therefore was rightfully transferred here. Abstract of record and brief for the appellant were prepared after the cause reached this court. That being true, our rules must govern as to what must be contained in the abstract of record. It is true that in cases first presented to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, their rules being different from ours, and afterwards certified to this court, we have held that, inasmuch as the abstract was sufficient under the rules of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, the same would be held sufficient here. But that is not this case. Here the appeal should have been granted to this court in the first instance, and no abstract of the record was made or filed in the St. Louis Court of Appeals. It is made for the first time in this court, and therefore must be under the rules...