Roberts v. Jones

• Decision Date: 21 February 1899
• Citation: 148 Mo. 368,49 S.W. 985
• Parties: ROBERTS et al. v. JONES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 S.W. 985

148 Mo. 368

ROBERTS et al. v. JONES et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 21, 1899.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — SIGNING.

Under Rev. St. 1889, § 2167, requiring bills of exceptions to be signed by the judge, an entry at the conclusion of the bill to the effect that it is signed by the judge, when in fact his signature does not appear, is insufficient.

Appeal from circuit court, Macon county; Andrew Ellison, Judge.

Proceeding by W. D. Roberts and others for opening a new road. From an order and judgment of the county court establishing the road, and assessing damages to landowners, O. W. Jones and others appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the judgment, and objectors again appeal. Affirmed.

Dysart & Mitchell, for appellants. Bert D. Nortoni, W. H. Sears, and A. W. Mullins, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is a proceeding begun by the petitioners, W. D. Roberts and others, in the county court of Macon county, for opening a new road in said county. Commissioners were duly appointed by the court to assess damages to the landowners through whose land the road was to run, and who failed to give the right of way. They were ordered to assess the amount of damages to each tract of land separately, together with the name of each person interested therein. They thereafter made their report to the court, which was approved, and the road established. The court, in the order and judgment establishing said road, assessed to the objectors the same damages allowed them by the commissioners. In due time the remonstrators appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the county court was in all things affirmed, and the road established. Remonstrators then appealed to this court, and they assign many reasons why the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed. But there is no bill of exceptions here, that can be regarded as such, since, as was said in Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622, "the bill which is said to contain the evidence and other proceedings had at the trial has not been signed by the judge, nor otherwise authenticated." Rev. St. 1889, § 2167, requires bills of exceptions to be signed by the judge, and an entry, at the conclusion of what purports to be the bill of exceptions, to the effect that it is signed by the judge, when in fact his signature does not appear thereto, as in this case, will not do. There is, then, nothing before this court for review, save and except the...