Kansas City v. Mullins
| Decision Date | 10 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 12885.,12885. |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY v. MULLINS |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; T. J. Seehorn, Judge.
Action by Kansas City against William C. Mullins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A. F. Evans, Hunt C. Moore, and A. F. Smith, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Fyke & Snider, of Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover a sum it was compelled to pay on account of what is alleged to be defendant's negligence in leaving a piece of sewer pipe lying on a sidewalks lace whereby a pedestrian was injured. The trial was by the court without the aid of a jury, and at its close the court gave a declaration that practically directed a verdict fan defendant.
We find from the abstract presented that what is termed a bill of exceptions is not authenticated by the judge. To become a bill of exceptions the paper purporting to be such bill must be signed by the judge, and unless the abstract shows such signature there is no bill. Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411, 63 S. W. 808; Roberts v. Jones, 148 Mo. 368, 49 S. W. 985; State v. Griffin, 249 Mo. 624, 155 S. W. 432; Keaton v. Weber, 233 Mo. 691, 136 S. W. 342; State v. Brown, 164 Mo. App. 726, 147 S. W. 1134. In addition to the foregoing cases it has been frequently ruled that the abstract must show a proper bill of exceptions, and that the court will not go to the transcript to make out what should appear in the abstract. Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625, 632, 100 S. W. 638. It has also been several times ruled that it is the duty of the court to raise the point. Hutson v. Allen, 236 Mo. 645, 139 S. W. 121; St. Louis v. Young, 248 Mo. 346, 154 S. W. 87.
We are thus left with nothing but the record proper, and, finding no error therein, the judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. And To Use of Kansas City Light & Power Co. v. Trimble
...726; State v. Watts, 248 Mo. 494; State v. Griffin, 249 Mo. 624; Wank v. Peet, 190 S.W. 88; State v. Bockstruck, 192 S.W. 404; K. C. v. Mullins, 204 S.W. 732; Williams v. Term. Ry. Co., 223 S.W. 132; v. Shoe Co., 228 S.W. 525. (2) The statement filed by relator in the Court of Appeals was n......
-
Welliams v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
...the case of Kansas City v. Mullins (which was inadvertently, through some oversight, prematurely permitted to be published and appears in 204 S. W. 732), the record was in the same condition as this case is, and the appeal was dismissed on that ground. But a rehearing was granted and the ca......
-
Kansas City v. Mullins
...J. Seehorn, Judge. Action by Kansas City against William C. Mullins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 204 S. W. 732. J. A. Harzfeld, A. F. Evans, A. F. Smith, and Hunt C. Moore, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Fyke & Snider, of Kansas City, for ELLISON,......
- Independent Breweries. Co. v. Lawton