Pope v. Thomson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Citation | 66 Mo. 661 |
| Parties | POPE, et al., Plaintiffs in Error v. THOMSON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Morgan Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. W. MILLER, Judge.
Stover & Nelson with W. S. Pope for plaintiffs in error.
Draffen & Williams for defendants in error.
The transcript contains no record proper, except portions incorporated in what purports to be a bill of exceptions. There is nothing to show that the bill of exceptions was ever filed. The court granted leave to plaintiff to file bill of exceptions within sixty days from the 5th of February, 1876, from which it is inferable that it was not filed in term, but when, or whether ever filed no where appears. It does not even appear that the clerk endorsed on the bill of exceptions, “filed.” We do not mention this as an act that would authorize us to consider it as a bill of exceptions, but to show that this has less claim to be considered a bill of exceptions, than many of those which have been disregarded by this court. At the January term, 1874, two years before this cause was determined in the circuit court, in Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo. 302, it was held that the bill “must not only be signed by the judge, but be filed also, during the term of the court at which it is taken.” SHERWOOD, J., delivering the opinion of the court, says, also, that “the term ‘filed,’ as above employed, has a broader signification than the mere indorsement to that effect, and comprehends more especially in its proper interpretation, the entry made by the clerk on the record, by which the fact that it has been allowed is announced and appropriately evidenced.” It must appear by an entry of record, in the record proper, that the bill of exceptions was filed. Neither the indorsement of the clerk on the bill of exceptions, “filed,” with day and date, nor the statement by the judge that it is signed, sealed and made part of the record, nor both, will suffice. There must be a record entry that it was filed. The case of Fulkerson v. Houts, supra, has been followed in Baker v. Loring, 65, Mo. 527; Johnson v. Hodges, 65 Mo. 589, and Clark v. Bullock, 65 Mo. 535.
Perceiving no error in that portion of the record, which is preserved, all concurring, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Co. v. Turner
... ... Williams, 26 ... Mo.App. 408; La Follette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; ... Ferguson v. Thatcher, 79 Mo. 511; Fulkerson v ... Houts, 55 Mo. 302; Pope v. Thompson, 66 Mo ... 661; Hayden v. Alkire Gro. Co., 88 Mo.App. 241; R ... S. 1909, secs. 2029, 2031 and 2033; Johnson v ... Hodges, 65 Mo ... ...
-
Cox v. Esteb
...by the clerk “filed,” giving date, etc., but no record was ever made of the filing by the clerk, as required by law. See Pope v. Thompson, 66 Mo. 661; Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo. 301; Baker v. Loring, 65 Mo. 527; Johnson v. Hodges, 65 Mo. 589; Clark v. Bullock, 65 Mo. 535. When this case was......
-
State v. White
...150 Mo. 428, 51 S. W. 678; Western S. & W. Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 426, 52 S. W. 237; Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652, 31 S. W. 37; Pope v. Thomson, 66 Mo. 661; McGrew v. Foster, 66 Mo. 30. With the bill of exceptions eliminated from our consideration, it becomes our duty to examine the record ......
-
Bower v. Daniel
... ... 237; Crossland v. Admire, 149 Mo ... 650, 51 S.W. 463; Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652, 31 ... S.W. 37; Ferguson v. Thacher, 79 Mo. 511; Pope ... v. Thomson, 66 Mo. 661; McGrew v. Foster, 66 ... Mo. 30.] No matter of exception can, therefore, be considered ... on this appeal ... ...