McCarty v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 30 April 1882 |
| Parties | MCCARTY, Appellant, v. CUNNINGHAM. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH CRAVENS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Harding & Buller for appellant.
Chas. A. Winslow for respondent.
Notwithstanding the positive injunction of the statute that exceptions must be filed during the term at which they are taken, and not after, it has been held by this court that a bill of exceptions may be filed after the expiration of the term, provided the parties consent thereto and the court so orders. Robart v. Long, 65 Mo. 223; Peake v. Bell, 65 Mo. 224; West v. Fowler, 59 Mo. 40. The bill of exceptions in this case was not filed during the term, and although the consent of parties that it might be filed in vacation appears, there is no order of court based upon such consent authorizing it to be done, and under the authority of the cases above cited, the bill of exceptions must be disregarded, as this is insisted upon in the first point made by respondent. This being done, there is nothing left for us to consider but the record proper, and as we find no error in it, the judgment will be affirmed.
All concur.
Motion for rehearing overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Ohio Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... his bill after the term by consent of the other party and of ... the court, entered of record during the term ( McCarty v ... Cunningham, 75 Mo. 279); and in 1885, Laws 1885, page ... 214, the necessity of obtaining the consent of the opposing ... party was ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Co. v. Turner
... ... Laws 1818, p. 259, sec. 46; 2 R. S. 1825, p. 631, sec ... 39; Pomeroy v. Selles, 8 Mo. 727; 2 R. S. 1855, p ... 1264, secs. 27 and 28; McCarty v. Cunningham, 75 Mo ... 279; Spencer v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 500; State v ... Duckworth, 68 Mo. 156; Brewer v. Dinwiddie, 25 ... Mo. 351; State ex ... ...
-
State v. Ryan
...thus amended remained unchanged until the act of 1885, (Acts 1885, p. 215.) And yet, to adopt the language of Judge Norton in McCarty v. Cunningham, 75 Mo. 279, notwithstanding the positive injunction of the statute that exceptions must be filed during the term at which they were taken, and......
-
Rine v. Chicago & Alton R.R. Co.
...The record shows consent only of plaintiff for respondent to file its bill of exceptions in this case. This is insufficient. McCarty v. Cunningham, 75 Mo. 279; Spencer v. Ry., 79 Mo. 500. And there is nothing but the record proper for this court to examine. (4) The trial court did not err i......