Rusch v. Valle
| Decision Date | 31 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22402.,22402. |
| Citation | 237 S.W. 111 |
| Parties | RUSCH v. VALLE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Davis, Judge.
Suit by Emil C. Rusch against Florence Valle to cancel a judgment to quiet title. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Grant & Grant, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Walther, Muench & Hecker, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This action is a proceeding in equity, and it appears from a voluminous bill that the plaintiff seeks relief in cancellation of a certain judgment and certain deeds of trust, and asks the court to decree title in the plaintiff to certain real estate. The answer at great length sets out facts in contravention of the statements in the petition and avers matters demanding affirmative relief. There was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
The appellant has presented no assignment of errors in this court, and has not stated in "Points and Authorities," or otherwise, any errors of which she complains. It is not even assigned as error in the appellant's brief that the judgment is for the wrong party. The brief consists of the statement of several abstract propositions of law without calling this court's attention to any error committed in the trial court in respect to such propositions.
Under repeated and uniform rulings of this court nothing is presented by the record requiring a review. Still v. Glass (App.) 222 S. W. 893; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Boonville Coal Co. (App.) 226 S. W. 961; Frick v. Millers' National Insurance Co., 279 Mo. 156, 213 S. W. 854; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. 529, 175 S. W. 199, following the ruling in the cases cited.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
RAILEY and REEVES, CC., concur.
The foregoing opinion by WHITE, C., is adopted as the opinion of this court.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
...is an abstract statement of law and insufficient to preserve the issue for review. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Rusch v. Valle, 237 S.W. 111; State ex rel. v. Caldwell, 276 S.W. 631. Assignment of error No. 2, in respect to refused Instructions 4 and 5, is not carried forward ......
-
Scott v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...is an abstract statement of law and insufficient to preserve the issue for review. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Rusch v. Valle, 237 S.W. 111; ex rel. v. Caldwell, 276 S.W. 631. Assignment of error No. 2, in respect to refused Instructions 4 and 5, is not carried forward to or ......
-
Schwartzman v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., Limited, of Liverpool, England
...v. Winkleman, 243 Mo. 81; Bank v. Hutton, 224 Mo. l. c. 53; State v. Boehm, 184 Mo. l. c. 209; Sullivan v. Holbrook, 211 Mo. 99; Rusch v. Valle, 237 S.W. 111; v. Millers National Ins. Co., 279 Mo. 156; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. 529; State v. Barker, 242 S.W. 405; Christine v. Luyties, 2......
-
Brady v. Rapedo
...v. Ry. Co., 139 Mo.App. 525, 123 S.W. 507; State v. Parsons (Mo.), 285 S.W. 412; Mahmet v. Am. Rad. Co. (Mo.), 294 S.W. 1014; Rusch v. Vallee, 237 S.W. 111; Independence Bank v. Commercial State Bk., Mt. Wash., 253 S.W. 163; Le Clair v. Le Clair et al., 77 S.W.2d 862, l. c. 864; Scott v. Mo......