Long v. Long

• Decision Date: 18 June 1888
• Citation: 96 Mo. 180,8 S.W. 766
• Parties: LONG v. LONG.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 766

96 Mo. 180

LONG v. LONG.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 18, 1888.

APPEAL — PRACTICE.

Where the appellant fails to furnish the supreme court with a clear and concise statement of the case, and of the points intended to be insisted on in argument, and also fails to prepare an abstract of the record setting forth so much thereof as is necessary to a decision of the case, and the points relied on are not thus preserved, in compliance with the statutes and rules of court governing appeals, the court will not examine the transcript of the record, and give judgment thereon, but, acting on the presumption that the judgment of the circuit court was correct, will affirm it.

Appeal from circuit court, Knox county; BEN E. TURNER, Judge.

Ejectment by David Long against Joseph Long for land in Knox county, Mo. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

O. D. Jones, for appellant. Blair & Marchand and David Long, for appellee.

SHERWOOD, J.

This cause has been here before. It is reported in 79 Mo. 644, and is ejectment for about 470 acres of land in Knox county. On the former appeal, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions that if, pending the appeal, the plaintiff had been placed in possession, that a writ of restitution issue, restoring the defendant to the premises in controversy, and that then the plaintiff's action be dismissed. The mandate of this court was obeyed, the defendant was restored to the premises in controversy, and plaintiff again brought ejectment, claiming title under another and different deed of trust and sale made thereunder, — the Howerton deed. The answer was a general denial, and also a special defense charging fraud, etc. In a criminal cause the statute makes it the duty of this court to examine the record, and to give judgment thereon, whether any brief, statement, or assignment of error be filed or not. But in civil actions the rule is different. In such cases, it is the duty of the parties to make out and furnish this court with a clear and concise statement of the case, and of the points intended to be insisted on in argument. And our rules require that the appellant prepare an abstract of the record, setting forth so much thereof as is necessary to a full understanding of all the questions necessary for a decision, etc. Neither the statute nor our rules have been observed in this case. It is true, we have filed herein a number of abstracts, counter-abstracts, briefs, counter-briefs,...