Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 14015.,14015. |
| Citation | 232 S.W. 239 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph Johnson, of Kansas City, for plaintiff in error.
S. W. Sawyer, John H. Lathrop, and Lathrop, Morrow, Fox & Moore, all of Kansas City, for defendant in error.
We gather from the statement in the brief of plaintiff in error that this writ of error seeks to review an order sustaining a motion to quash an execution issued on a judgment in a justice court rendered on the 28th of January, 1916, in a suit wherein J. A. McClelland and Kate McClelland were defendants, and the Kansas City Terminal Railway was garnishee in which judgment against the said defendants was rendered for $350 and against the garnishee for $97.56; that the ground of said motion was that on January 7, 1916, before said judgment was rendered, McClelland was adjudged a bankrupt, and received his discharge in bankruptcy, thereby discharging him from the payment of the debt involved in the judgment, and for which respondent herein was garnished as a debtor of said McClelland.
The abstract of plaintiff in error is wholly insufficient to authorize us to review the case on the merits. There is neither an abstract of the record proper nor an abstract of a bill of exceptions. There is no showing of the judgment of the justice either against the defendants or against the garnishee, nor any statement in the record in regard thereto. All that is shown is a purported copy of the execution and a purported copy of the order sustaining the motion to quash, together with a statement of counsel as to the object of the motion. There is no showing of any bill of exceptions whatever, or that any bill was filed. The abstract therefore is, if possible, in a worse condition than the appeal in Sperry v. Thiemie, 256 Mo. 593, 595, 165 S. W. 1008, which the court held could have been dismissed "for failure," but wherein the judgment was affirmed because the judgment in the shortform transcript appeared to be regular, and was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the appeal. See, also, Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Rees
...v. Levy, 159 Mo. 629; Wafford v. Railroad, 195 Mo. 213; Pickle v. Pickle, 176 Mo.App. 677; Brown v. Ins. Co., 228 S.W. 884; Johnson v. Terminal Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 239. (5) The plea of res adjudicata is an affirmative Battie Mfg. Co. v. Geradi, 166 Mo. 142; Nelson v. Jones, 245 Mo. 579. (6) T......
-
Zeitinger v. Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company
...for respondent. (1) When there is no exception saved, objection to the judgment's waived. St. Louis v. Brooks, 107 Mo. 383; Johnson v. Terminal Ry. Co., 232 S.W. 239. When the exceptionless appeal, they're like a worm beneath the heel. No matter how they writhe and squirm, the court will ce......
-
Jones Store Co. v. Lamb
...reviewed, unless an exception was saved at the time and thereafter properly preserved in a bill of exceptions. In Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co., 232 S. W. 239, we said: "Although the action of the lower court on a motion to quash an execution will be reviewed, though there be ......