Redmonvowh v. National Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12919.,12919.
• Citation: 204 S.W. 586
• Parties: REDMONVOWH v. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

204 S.W. 586

REDMONVOWH v. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

No. 12919.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 10, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Nick Redmonvowh against the National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America. From an order sustaining a motion to quash an execution on the transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Rogers & Yates, Prince & Harris, J. N. Beery and J. E. Westfall, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Chas. Stratton and W. W. Bryant, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case appears to be an appeal from an order sustaining a motion to quash an execution issued out of the circuit clerk's office on a transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace fuel therein.

No bill of exceptions was filed wherein matters of exception could be preserved, and this is one of the grounds of respondent's attack upon the sufficiency of plaintiff's appeal. It is not certain, but it may be, that no evidence was necessary to be heard upon the motion to quash, and that the motion was regarded as an attack upon the sufficiency of the judgment on its face, in which case the action of the court on the motion might not require an exception on the part of the appellant to preserve his rights, the same as in the case of a demurrer. However, it is asserted by respondent that evidence was heard on the motion, and the abstract of the record proper, in setting forth the judgment sustaining the motion, says that plaintiff excepted thereto. This, however, is not the place to show such exception, and same cannot be considered, perhaps, not even as impliedly showing that plaintiff deemed an exception necessary. The motion itself does not rely solely upon the face of the judgment, but speaks of matters which would seem to require evidence dehors the record to support it. However, we will not pass upon the question whether the sustaining of the motion to quash was matter of exception requiring a bill of exceptions to preserve appellant's rights or not, since there is another defect in appellant's presentation of this appeal about which there can be no question, and that is there is no statement of the case in appellant's brief. Whatever might be regarded as approaching in any degree a statement, if any, is hopelessly commingled throughout the record proper, and even then it is difficult to determine whether the matters thus appearing are mere statements or matters appearing of record. We cannot tell "which from tother." This is not...