Mason v. Hutchison

• Decision Date: 28 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12708.,12708.
• Parties: MASON v. HUTCHISON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

201 S.W. 593

MASON v. HUTCHISON.

No. 12708.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 28, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Kimbrough Stone, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by U. G. Mason against J. G. Hutchison. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. F. Spottswood and Jamison, Hutchison & Ostergard, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Hal R. Lebrecht, of Kansas City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's original abstract of the record proper fails to show that his motion for a new trial was filed during the term at which the verdict was rendered. There is nothing in the short form transcript filed in the cause that supplies this defect. Under these circumstances there is nothing before us but the record proper. Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625, 100 S. W. 638; State v. Little River Drainage District, 271 Mo. 429, 196 S. W. 1115. On December 3, 1917, respondent filed his brief suggesting that the motion for a new trial was not shown to have been timely filed. The case was submitted on December 6, 1917, and appellant asked and was granted 10 days in which to file a reply brief. On December 15, 1917, appellant filed an amended abstract attempting to show that the motion for a new trial was filed at the same term at which the verdict and judgment were rendered. We are not permitted to consider appellant's amended abstract. Harding v. Bedoll, supra; Turney v. Ewins, 97 Mo. App. 620, 71 S. W. 543.

There is no contention on the part of appellant that there is any error in matters connected with the record proper.

The judgment is affirmed.