Majors v. Malone
| Decision Date | 14 December 1936 |
| Parties | Walter L. Majors v. Annie M. Pope Turnbo Malone, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John W Calhoun, Judge.
Appeal dismissed.
Lawrence McDaniel and F. E. Williams for appellant.
J M. Feigenbaum for respondent.
Action to recover for alleged breach of a contract of employment. The petition is in two counts. The first count asks damages in the sum of $ 100,000 with interest from October 19, 1915 for alleged wrongful discharge. The second count seeks to recover the sum of $ 3333.33 with interest from above date, alleged to be due plaintiff from the date of his employment to the date of his discharge. The answer contained (1) certain admissions of facts, (2) a general denial of all other allegations in the petition, and (3) a counterclaim in which defendant sought to recover from plaintiff the sum of $ 8928.10. The case was sent to a referee who, after hearing the evidence, reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law in which he found against defendant on his counterclaim, and in favor of plaintiff on his petition in the sum of $ 7528.65 with six per cent interest from October 19, 1915, and recommended that judgment be rendered accordingly.
Both parties filed exceptions to the referee's report. The court overruled the exceptions, approved the report and rendered judgment in accordance therewith. Defendant appealed.
Appellant's brief does not comply with Rule 15 of this court. This rule provides among other things, the following:
"The brief for appellant shall distinctly allege the errors committed by the trial court, and shall contain in addition thereto . . . a statement, in numerical order, of the points relied on, with citation of authorities thereunder, and no reference will be permitted at the argument to errors not specified; . . ."
Rule 16 makes it the mandatory duty of the court to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 15. Rule 16 reads as follows:
"If any appellant in any civil case fails to comply with the rules numbered 11, 12, 13 and 15, the court, when the cause is called for hearing, will dismiss the appeal, or writ of error; or, at the option of the respondent, continue the cause at the cost of the party in default."
The assignments of error in this case read as follows:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
(1) The judgment in said cause is against the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and against the law under the evidence.
(2) The judgment was for the wrong party.
(3) The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to the referee's report.
(4) The court erred in confirming the referee's report and in entering a judgment thereon in accordance with said report in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on the first count of plaintiff's petition.
(5) The court erred in confirming the referee's report and in entering a judgment thereon in accordance with said report in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on defendant's counterclaim.
(6) The court erred in finding an excessive amount of money to be due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff.
(7) The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to the findings of facts and conclusions of law made by the referee in his report and in confirming the recommendations of the referee of a judgment for the plaintiff under the law and the evidence in this case.
(8) The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to referee's report based on the fact that the referee failed to specify the count upon which the referee based his findings, and also because the referee failed to make a specific finding upon each count of plaintiff's petition.
(9) The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding against the evidence and against the weight of the evidence.
(10) The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding under the law and the evidence that the defendant did not have just cause to discharge plaintiff.
(11) The court erred in overruling the defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in failing to consider pertinent and essential questions of law involved in the case.
(12) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of defendant to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in failing to consider vital and undisputed evidence which showed conclusively that defendant was justified in discharging plaintiff.
(13) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of defendant to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee's review of the evidence as set forth in his report showed that he did not fairly consider all the evidence in making his findings in this cause.
(14) The court erred in overruling the defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding as to the particular act of the plaintiff upon which defendant based her discharge of plaintiff.
(15) The court erred in overruling the defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding of facts and also in conclusions of law, and also in recommending a judgment against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff upon the defendant's counterclaim.
(16) The court erred in overruling the defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding that defendant wrongfully discharged the plaintiff, as the finding in that respect is contrary to the evidence and the weight of the evidence.
(17) The court erred in overruling the defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding that plaintiff's act and conduct as shown by the evidence did not constitute sufficient cause for his discharge by defendant.
(18) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of defendant to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in finding under the evidence that the plaintiff did not voluntarily leave the employ of the defendant.
(19) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of defendant to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial evidence offered by the plaintiff.
(20) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of defendant to the referee's report based on the fact that the referee erred in rejecting competent, relevant and material evidence offered by the defendant, including Defendant's Exhibit D.
(21) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
Some of above specifications are sufficient as assignments of error but many of them are not. None of them state the point relied on to show the alleged error of the court. For example -- assignment No. 20 states that "the court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions to the referee's report based on the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Kraus
...objection to such refusal has been abandoned on this appeal, since it is not raised in appellants' points or argument. Majors v. Malone, 339 Mo. 1118, 100 S.W.2d 300. Nor has the point of Allen's alleged contributory negligence been preserved for review on this appeal by defendants' motion ......
-
Bilton v. Lindell Tower Apartments
... ... of the holders of the Stock Certificates. The contention to ... the contrary has been abandoned on appeal. Majors v ... Malone, 339 Mo. 1118, 100 S.W.2d 300. (16) Neither the ... Stock Trust Agreement nor the Trust Deed and Chattel Mortgage ... provides for ... ...
-
Laughlin v. Boatmen's Nat. Bank of St. Louis
... ... 104, 274 S.W. 770, 774 ... We have ... not considered several alleged errors which the appellant has ... not briefed. Majors v. Malone, 339 Mo. 1118, 100 ... S.W.2d 300. And, since the cause is to be retried on all ... issues, as indicated, we think it unnecessary to ... ...
-
Glasgow v. City of St. Joseph
... ... cure the generalities contained in defendant's assignment ... of errors as to plaintiff's Instruction 1. Majors v ... Malone, 100 S.W.2d 300; Willard v. Robinson, ... 129 S.W.2d 911; Eisenbarth v. Powell Bros. Truck ... Lines, 161 S.W.2d 263. (7) ... ...