Reno v. Fitz Jarrell

Decision Date21 May 1901
Citation63 S.W. 808,163 Mo. 411
PartiesRENO et al. v. FITZ JARRELL et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Action by Ellen Reno and others against Catharine M. Fitz Jarrell and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Hicklin & Hicklin, for appellants. Alexander & Allen, for respondents.

SHERWOOD, J.

After the motions for new trial and in arrest were filed and denied, and after the record shows affidavit for appeal filed and granted, and bond for appeal given, then occurs these statements of record marked "1" and "2": "(1) And afterwards, to wit, on the 8th day of the regular September, 1897, term of said court, it being the 15th day of September, 1897, the following other proceedings were had in said cause, to wit: Ellen Reno et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Catharine Fitz Jarrell et al., Defendants. (2) Plaintiffs' bill of exceptions filed, which said bill of exceptions is signed and sealed by the court, and made part of the record herein; said bill of exceptions being fully set out in the foregoing transcript." The object of a recital in the record that a bill of exceptions has been filed is to authenticate the bill, and to identify it as the bill thus filed. There is nothing in record recital No. 2 to identify the bill. Whereabouts "in the foregoing transcript" is "said bill of exceptions fully set out"? The usual and correct formula for a record entry in regard to filing a bill is like this: "Now, on this 8th day of January, 1901, comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause, and by leave of court files herein his bill of exceptions, which bill of exceptions is in the words and figures following." Then follows the bill of exceptions, and at its close is something like this: "And the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause presents this his bill of exceptions to me, the undersigned judge, and asks that the same be signed, sealed, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • Rhodes v. A. Moll Grocer Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1936
    ...abstract. It is necessary that the bill be identified in the record "at each end" in order to be before the appellate court. Reno v. FitzJarrell, 163 Mo. 411; v. Schibsby, 238 S.W. 811. (c) Appellants' purported abstract hopelessly commingles matters of record proper and matters of exceptio......
  • State ex rel. Conway v. Hiller
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1915
    ... ... 442, 102 S.W ... 992; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. l. c. 625 at 630-1, ... 100 S.W. 638; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411, 63 ... S.W. 808.] There are many other cases in the ... ...
  • State ex rel. And To Use of Kansas City Light & Power Co. v. Trimble
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1922
    ...signed during the time when it legally could have been done. Roberts v. Johnson, 148 Mo. 568, followed that case, and Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411, 63 S.W. 808, followed Roberts v. Johnson on that point. Another ground decision seems principally to have influenced this last mentioned d......
  • State v. Hiller
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1915
    ...565, 111 S. W. 1131; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442, 102 S. W. 992; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 630, 631, 100 S. W. 638; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411, 63 S. W. 808. There are many other cases in the appellate courts of this state to same In St. Louis v. Young, 248 Mo. loc. cit. 347, 348,......
  • 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