Langstaff v. City of Webster Groves

• Decision Date: 30 November 1912
• Parties: LANGSTAFF v. CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

151 S.W. 456

246 Mo. 223

LANGSTAFF v. CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 30, 1912.

1. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF (§ 56) — FILING — RECORD.

The judge's statement, at the end of a paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, that it was allowed, signed, sealed, "filed, and made a part of the record," does not prove that fact, but merely shows that it was signed in proper form and ready to file.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 581) — REVIEW — RECORD — BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

Matters in the bill of exceptions will not be reviewed, unless it is shown in the abstract of the record proper that a bill of exceptions was actually filed, as well as signed.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 581) — REVIEW — RECORD — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

Matters required to be presented in a motion for a new trial will not be reviewed, unless it appears from the abstract of the record entry of the court that such motion was filed and passed on.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Thomas Langstaff against the City of Webster Groves. Verdict for defendant, which appeals from an order granting a new trial. Affirmed.

S. D. Hodgdon, of Webster Groves, and L. A. Steber, of St. Louis, for appellant. R. H. Stevens, of Clayton, and Watts, Gentry & Lee, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BROWN, C.

This is a suit for $20,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff from falling off a defective sidewalk in defendant city. It was instituted in the circuit court for the county of St. Louis, from which it was removed to the circuit court for the city of St. Louis, in which the transcript was filed February 7, 1908. The cause seems to have been tried at the June term, 1908, of that court. The trial resulted in a verdict for defendant, which was set aside upon motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the court had erred in giving improper instructions at defendant's request. The appeal is taken from the order sustaining the motion for a new trial, as is shown by the short transcript filed. The abstract of the record consists of the certified transcript of the proceedings in the circuit court for St. Louis county. It contains no entry whatever from the records of the circuit court for the city of St. Louis.

Following the transcript is what purports to be a "bill of exceptions," beginning as follows: "Be it remembered that, on the 20th day of April, 1908, at the April term, the above-entitled cause came on for trial in division No. 4 of said court, before Hon. Matt G. Reynolds, Judge, and a jury, and the following proceedings were had therein, to wit." Then...