Robison v. Cantley

• Decision Date: 07 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 17292.,17292.
• Citation: 44 S.W.2d 199
• Parties: ROBISON et al. v. CANTLEY, Commissioner of Finance et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

44 S.W.2d 199

ROBISON et al. v. CANTLEY, Commissioner of Finance et al.

No. 17292.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 7, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; D. D. Reeves, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by E. G. Robison and another against S. L. Cantley, Commissioner of Finance, and another. From the judgment, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

C. E. Ernst, of Albany, and C. R. Hewitt, of Maysville, for appellants.

J. W. McKnight, of Albany, and E. G. Robison, of Maysville, for respondents.

TRIMBLE, P. J.

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment of the De Kalb circuit court in a cause wherein plaintiffs sought to establish a preference against the assets of the Maysville Bank now in the hands of the state commissioner of finance. After hearing the evidence, the trial court declared a preference of $981.41, which was to have priority over the general creditors of said bank and to be paid out of the assets available for the payment of preferential claims, but denied a preference as to $803.82, the remainder of plaintiffs' claim. The court, however, approved it as a common claim. No appeal was made by plaintiffs. Hence the court's action with regard to the $803.82 is not now in the case.

No attack is made by appellants upon anything appearing in the record proper. The errors complained of are all matters of exception. Such errors are nowhere conceded by respondents, but, on the contrary, they deny that any error was committed. They insist that the judgment should not be disturbed for two reasons: (1) Because no exceptions were taken or saved to the overruling of defendants' motion for new trial; (2) because, this being an equity case, all the evidence must be brought up in the record, else this court cannot disturb the judgment of the trial court or properly review the same. We have carefully examined the record and find both of these conditions to exist, and that attention has been called to the failure to take, preserve, or show exceptions to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, by notice given in due time as required by the rules of our court. No answer to the complaints aimed at the sufficiency of the record has been made by appellants. Under an unbroken line of authorities, the above failure with regard to exceptions to the overruling of the motion for new trial precludes us from examining any of the appellants' exceptions taken at the trial. Sicher v. Rambousek, 193...