Ray v. Ray
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 301 |
| Parties | FRANCIS L. RAY, Respondent, v. ANDREW H. RAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From Pettis Circuit Court.
Snoddy & Bridges, for appellant.
H. B. Johnson & Batsford, for respondent.
The record in this case does not show that any appeal was allowed. Although an affidavit and bond for an appeal were filed, yet the record does not show any order allowing the appeal. The statute requires that the court shall make an order allowing the appeal. As this was not done, and as the case is not here by writ of error, it must be stricken from the docket.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Conrath v. Houchin
...far as the matter went. There is no order allowing the appeal. Such an order was a necessary step in the perfection of the appeal. [Ray v. Ray, 49 Mo. 301; Allen v. Britton, 141 Mo. 173, 42 S.W. Peacock Productions, Inc., v. Paine, 221 Mo.App. 377, 289 S.W. 341.] It is said in the case last......
-
Conrath v. Houchin
...far as the matter went. There is no order allowing the appeal. Such an order was a necessary step in the perfection of the appeal. [Ray v. Ray, 49 Mo. 301; Allen v. Britton, 141 Mo. 173; Peacock Productions, Inc., v. Paine, 289 S.W. (Mo. App.) 341.] It is said in the case last "Where the ap......
-
Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co.
...defect is fatal to the appeal. Harper v. Oil Co., 74 Mo. App. 645; Meyers v. Meyers, 19 Mo. App. 140; Swank v. Swank, 85 Mo. 198; Ray v. Ray, 49 Mo. 301; State v. Ry., 84 Mo. 129. The recital in the bill of exceptions of the fact that an appeal was taken does not evidence the fact. It must ......
- Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co.
Request a trial to view additional results