Kansas City Building & Loan Ass'n No. 6 v. Harding, 17682.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 17682.,17682.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: KANSAS CITY BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N NO. 6 v. HARDING.

58 S.W.2d 795

KANSAS CITY BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N NO. 6 v. HARDING.

No. 17682.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 6, 1933.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1933.

Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Edward E. Naber, Special Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by the Kansas City Building & Loan Association No. 6 against Sarah Harding. To review a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

L. N. Dempsey, of Kansas City, for plaintiff in error.

Reinhardt & Schibsby, of Kansas City, for defendant in error.

BOYER, Commissioner.

The Kansas City Building & Loan Association instituted an action in unlawful detainer against Sarah Harding. The case originated before a justice of the peace and was there tried. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appealed to the circuit court where plaintiff again prevailed and obtained judgment upon a verdict for possession of the property in question and for rent and damages. Defendant appealed to this court, dismissed the appeal and now brings up the case on writ of error.

Numerous alleged errors are assigned. One is on the question of jurisdiction. All other points would be determined by the evidence or upon exceptions preserved in a proper bill of exceptions. An inspection of the abstract of the record furnished by plaintiff in error and of a purported bill of exceptions contained therein shows that said bill of exceptions does not contain any exception to the ruling of the court upon the motion for new trial. In such situation the record proper is the only basis for the assignment of error. There is no matter of exception here for review. Rees v. Burrell (Mo. App.) 55 S.W. (2d) 1003; Arnold v. Iowa State Insurance Co. (Mo. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 865.

We are further moved to observe that the purported bill of exceptions contained in the abstract is not legally exemplified. There is no showing that it is the true bill signed by the judge and made a part of the record in this case. We are justified in holding that the bill lacks proper identification. Haibe v. Walsh, 225 Mo. App. 770, 38 S.W.(2d) 523. But such holding is unnecessary in this case to foreclose a consideration of matters resting on evidence and on exceptions for the reason heretofore stated.

The point of jurisdiction is placed upon an alleged insufficient statement and a lack of proper affidavit. The complaint is in conventional form and charges all necessary jurisdictional facts and states that plaintiff at a given time had the legal right of possession to certain described premises, it being an apartment, and that defendant willfully, unlawfully, and without force holds over and detains said apartment "after the termination of the time for which said apartment was demised or let to her or the person under whom she claims." Appellant insists that the quoted words contain contradictory statements which nullify the complaint. There is no contradictory statement...