Lafollette v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Citation | 83 Mo. 199 |
| Parties | LAFOLLETTE v. THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.--HON. N. M. GIVAN, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
F. P. Wright for appellant.
Edwin Silver and Wooldridge & Daniel for respondent.
The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $195, from which defendant has appealed. We are precluded from considering the questions raised at the trial, for the reason that the record fails to contain any bill of exceptions.
The record discloses an order and consent of parties that a bill of exceptions may be filed twenty days after adjournment of the term. There is nothing of record, or on what purports to be a bill of exceptions, to indicate that it was ever filed at all. There must be an entry of record to make a bill of exceptions a part of the record. This is indispensable in term time. When leave is granted, with consent of parties, to file a bill in vacation, there must be some certificate on the bill itself, signed by the clerk, indicating the fact and date of filing, or some entry made by the clerk in the records of the court to that effect. Both of these requisites are wanting in the present case. The memorandum of attorneys written at the foot of the bill to the effect that the parties “have agreed upon the foregoing bill of exceptions,” does not help out the matter. That is addressed to the judge to inform him that he may sign the bill as settled and agreed upon between the parties. Besides, as there is nothing to connect the bill with the record, the memorandum, equally with the supposed bill, is outside of it.
As the verdict and judgment are supported by the petition, it only remains for us to affirm the action of the court below, which is accordingly done.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley
-
The State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Co. v. Turner
...99; State ex rel. v. Holland, 116 Mo.App. 345; Reynolds v. Schade, 131 Mo.App. 1; Williams v. Williams, 26 Mo.App. 408; La Follette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Ferguson v. Thatcher, 79 Mo. 511; Fulkerson Houts, 55 Mo. 302; Pope v. Thompson, 66 Mo. 661; Hayden v. Alkire Gro. Co., 88 Mo.App. 241......
-
State ex rel. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Smith
... ... 331; Dixon v. Thomas, 91 ... Mo.App. 364; Jaco v. Railroad, 68 S.W. 380; ... State v. Rolly, 135 Mo. 677; Labette v ... Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Robertson v. Boyd, 68 ... S.W. 976; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411; ... Cooper v. Maloney, 162 Mo. 684; State v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Company v. Turner
...ex rel. v. O'Gorman, 75 Mo. 379; Howard v. U.S. 42 C. C. A. 269, 102 F. 77; Callier v. Railroad, 158 Mo.App. 249, 138 S.W. 660; LaFollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Wilson Railroad, 167 Mo. 324; State v. Borders, 228 Mo. 480, 128 S.W. 737; Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo.App. 496; Fast v. Gray, 105 M......