Randolph v. Mauck

Decision Date31 October 1883
Citation78 Mo. 468
PartiesRANDOLPH, Appellant, v. MAUCK.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.--HON. JOHN C. ANDERSON, Judge.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Charles A. Winslow for appellant.

McQuoid & Balthrope for respondents.

MARTIN, C.

It is impossible for us to consider the merits of this case, the appeal not having been perfected within the time required by law. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the defendants at the December term, 1877, of the Knox county circuit court. At the same term and within four days the plaintiff filed a motion in arrest of judgment. These motions were by consent of parties continued to the June term, 1878, at which term they were overruled on the 7th day of June, 1878. At the time they were overruled the plaintiff, with the consent of defendants, obtained leave of court to file his bill of exceptions, affidavit and bond for and appeal at the December term, 1878, that being the next regular term of the court. The bill was not filed at that term, nor was the appeal then perfected by affidavit and bond in compliance with the agreement and order of leave. But at the said December term, the defendants consenting, the plaintiff obtained another order extending the time for perfecting his appeal by bill of exceptions, affidavit and bond at the next regular term of the court, being the June term, 1879. When the last mentioned term arrived the appeal was not perfected, but a similar agreement and order were entered extending the time for doing this to the next regular term, being the December term, 1879. At this last mentioned term the present appeal was allowed by the court, with bill of exceptions, affidavit and bond. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal upon the record as originally returned to this court, but, after the plaintiff applied for a certiorari, the motion was denied and the order granted. The return of the clerk to the order of certiorari makes the irregularity of the appeal more apparent than it was before.

These agreements and orders are insufficient in law to bring the case here by appeal for two reasons: 1st, An appeal must be perfected at the same term at which the court disposes of the motions for new trial and in arrest. The right of appeal depends upon the statutes, and they do not authorize an appeal at a subsequent term. It has been held that by agreement of parties and order of court a bill of exceptions can be filed in vacation, but no agreement or order will authorize an appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State ex rel. Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Rosskopf
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1932
    ...Universal Clay Co., 278 Mo. 415. (2) Jurisdiction of subject-matter cannot be conferred even by express agreement of the parties. Randolph v. Mauck, 78 Mo. 468. the appearance of both parties will not confer jurisdiction. A literal compliance with the appeal statute is necessary. The judgme......
  • Childs v. The Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1893
    ...v. McDaniel, 38 Mo. 138; Gray v. Parker, 38 Mo. 160; Henze v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 636; Givens v. Van Studdiford, 86 Mo. 149; Randolph v. Mauck, 78 Mo. 468. And filing of a motion for rehearing in an appellate court after the adjournment of the term, under an order allowing the motion to be fil......
  • State ex rel. Blackmer & Post Pipe v. Rosskopf
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1932
    ...Universal Clay Co., 278 Mo. 415. (2) Jurisdiction of subject-matter cannot be conferred even by express agreement of the parties. Randolph v. Mauck, 78 Mo. 468. And the appearance of both parties will not confer jurisdiction. A literal compliance with the appeal statute is necessary. The ju......
  • State ex rel. Scott v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1891
    ...v. McDaniel, 38 Mo. 138; Henze v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 644; Givens v. Van Studdiford, 86 Mo. 149; Keen v. Schnedler, 92 Mo. 525; Randolph v. Mauck, 78 Mo. 468; Hurt King, 24 Mo.App. 596; Nelson v. Withrow, 14 Mo.App. 273; Bank v. Fletcher, 15 Mo.App. 274. (2) Relator's object being to compel th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT