Pennewell v. Pennewell

• Decision Date: 04 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20722.,20722.
• Citation: 204 S.W. 183
• Parties: PENNEWELL et al. v. PENNEWELL et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

204 S.W. 183

PENNEWELL et al. v. PENNEWELL et al.

No. 20722.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 4, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Emma Pennewell et al., brought this suit in Pike county, Mo., against defendants, Hildreth Pennewell et al., to partition the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 27, township 54 north, range 4 west, located in said county. The case was tried in the court below on the fourth amended petition, filed March 2, 1913. Answers were filed by defendants, and the case tried before the court without a jury. Judgment was entered for plaintiffs, and defendants attempted to appeal the case to this court. Affirmed.

Fitzgerrell & Smith of Bowling Green, for appellants. Jones & Hayden, of Frankford, and Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for respondents.

RAILEY, C.

Appellants' printed abstract of the record, aside from the recitations contained in the alleged bill of exceptions, does not show that any bill of exceptions was ever filed in the cause, nor does it appear, outside of said alleged bill of exceptions, that any motion for a new trial was filed in the cause.

In Tracy v. Tracy et al., 201 S. W. loc. cit. 903, where the same question was involved, we said:

"We have often held that the recitals in the bill of exceptions, in regard to those matters which are required to appear in the record proper, are not sufficient. In view of the foregoing, we must dispose of the case upon the record proper. As there is nothing in the latter, indicating any errors upon the part of the trial court, its judgment is affirmed."

Numerous authorities are cited in the Tracy Case, supra, sustaining the conclusion of law reached therein. To same effect are Hall v. Hall et al., 194 S. W. 260; Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 400, 193 S. W. 819; Case v. Carland, 264 Mo. 463, 175 S. W. 200.

Nor have appellants filed any statement, points and authorities, or briefs, as required by rule 15 of this court. 198 S. W. vi.

As no error appears upon the record proper, the judgment below is, accordingly, affirmed.

BROWN, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of RAILEY, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All concur.