Jones v. Cook
| Decision Date | 02 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 14632.,14632. |
| Citation | 249 S.W. 422 |
| Parties | JONES v. COOK et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Action by Chas. F. Jones against Harry S. Cook and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Judgment affirmed.
Jacobs & Henderson, of Kansas City, for plaintiffs in error.
Byron L. Dusky and Waiter W. Calvin, both of Kansas City, for defendant in error.
The writ of error sued out herein is to review a judgment rendered in favor of Jones, plaintiff in a suit against Cook and others to recover $577.35, the value of an automobile delivered to defendants therein as the owners of an automobile parking place or station to be watched over and kept for plaintiff for hire, but which defendants therein failed to redeliver to plaintiff when he called for same, having; allowed some unknown and unauthorized person to take the automobile from said parking station.
We gather from the various briefs that, after the defendants in said suit had answered, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; and thereafter the court rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for the above-named amount.
There is nothing before us except an abstract of the record proper, and all that is properly disclosed therein is the petition and the answer together with a statement of the fact that judgment was rendered. No bill of exceptions is shown, and hence we have before us neither the motion for judgment on the pleadings, nor any exceptions saved to anything the court did, or that the attention of the trial court was in any way called to any alleged errors therein.
It is held in the recent case of Leahy v. Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo. Sup.) 247 S. W. 396, that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a demurrer, and hence it, together with the exceptions to the court's action thereon, must be preserved by a bill of exceptions. Therefore we fail to see wherein we have grounds to disturb the judgment, but must give ear to the motion attacking the record in which the case has been brought before us.
However, it apparently seems to be urged that since the petition and answer are matters appearing on the record proper, they at least can be considered; and it is thereupon urged that the answer sets up a defense and, in that case, the court could not render judgment without evidence to support it. The trouble with this contention is that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landau v. Schmitt Contracting Co.
...Fireproof Warehouse Co., 214 Mo. App. 336, 253 S.W. 491; First Nat. Bk. v. Produce Exch. Bank, 338 Mo. 91, 89 S.W. (2d) 33; Jones v. Cook (Mo. App.), 249 S.W. 422; Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America (Mo. App.), 7 S.W. (2d) 434; Cova v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 100 S.W. (2d) 2......
-
Landau v. Fred Schmitt Contracting Co.
... ... B. C. Fireproof Warehouse Co., 214 Mo.App. 336, 253 ... S.W. 491; First Nat. Bk. v. Produce Exch. Bank, 338 ... Mo. 91, 89 S.W.2d 33; Jones v. Cook (Mo. App.), 249 ... S.W. 422; Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America (Mo ... App.), 7 S.W.2d 434; Cova v. Bankers & Shippers Ins ... Co ... ...
-
Turner v. Browne
... ... 423; Sternberg v. Levy, 159 ... Mo. 617, 60 S.W. 1114, 53 L. R. A. 438; Godfrey v ... Godfrey, 228 Mo. 507, 128 S.W. 970; Jones v ... Cook, 249 S.W. 422; Frohoff v. Casualty Reciprocal ... Exch., 113 S.W.2d 1026; Galvin v. Kansas City, ... 122 S.W.2d 379. (2) There ... ...
-
Crabtree v. Bankers Life Ins. Co. of Des Moines, Ia.
...v. Howey, 240 S.W. 450; Harding v. Mo.-Pac. Ry. Co., 154 S.W. 711; Manchester Iron Works v. E.L. Wagner Const. Co., 107 S.W. 89; Jones v. Cook, 249 S.W. 422;. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 251 S.W. 751; State v. Schaper, 134 S.W. 671; State v. Delmar Jockey Club, 98 S.W. 539; Nicho......