Reames v. Standard Computing Scale Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1924
• Docket Number: No. 14934.,14934.
• Citation: 258 S.W. 451
• Parties: STANDARD COMPUTING SCALE CO. v. REAMES.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

258 S.W. 451

STANDARD COMPUTING SCALE CO. v. REAMES.

No. 14934.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 11, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Samuel A. Dew, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the Standard Computing Scale Company against Ralph G. Reames. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. M. Dodson, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Ayers H. Blocher, of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, P. J.

This action, originating in a justice court, is for the balance of the purchase price due on a computing scale manufactured and sold by plaintiff to defendant. The case went on appeal to the circuit court, where it was tried de novo by the court sitting as a jury, the latter having been waived. With no instructions or declarations of law or findings of fact being asked or given, the court rendered judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

No "Points and Authorities" are set forth or contained in appellant's brief. It does contain what is termed "Specifications of Error." But, with the possible exception of one point, these are so general that they could be applied to any case, and do not call to the court's attention the precise matter in which it is claimed the court erred. An appellant must point out error, and, if his brief contains no assignments of error nor concrete specifications thereof, it will not be considered. Coombs v. Tschudy, etc., Lumber Co. (Mo. Sup.) 197 S. W. 342. Error in the record must be shown by the abstract and called to the appellate court's attention by briefs. Brockmann v. United Railways Co., 271 Mo. 693, 197 S. W. 337. Brief must specify the errors relied upon for reversal, or the appeal will be dismissed. Newell v. Barks (Mo. Sup.) 197 S. W. 344; Copeland v. Smith (Mo. Sup.) 197 S. W. 348; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. 529, 175 S. W. 199; Frick v. Miller's National Ins. Co., 279 Mo. 156, 213 S. W. 854.

The one possible assignment of error, derived, however, partly through interpretation, is that there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment. A most casual reading of the record, however, will disclose that there is evidence pro and con in the record amply sufficient to raise an issue for the court, sitting as a trier of the facts, to determine.

A number of other alleged errors are mentioned in the appellant's printed "Argument," but, even if they had been pointed out in the assignment of errors, they could not be noticed, since they were not...