Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill
| Decision Date | 02 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 9417,SAFE-BUY,9417 |
| Citation | 498 S.W.2d 599 |
| Parties | REAL ESTATE AGENCY, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Morris D. HEMPHILL and Edna L. Hemphill, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Edison Kaderly, Lamar, for plaintiff-respondent.
Max H. Glover, Webb City, for defendant-appellant.
Suit to recover real estate commission and from a Jasper County jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for $10,000.00 the defendants, following an unsuccessful motion for new trial, have appealed. We affirm.
We initially observe that the appeal is from 'the judgment overruling motion for new trial', and, again, call attention to the fact that the appeal should have been taken from the judgment entered on the jury's verdict (Rule 81.04, V.A.M.R.; § 512.050 RSMo 1969) and not from the order overruling the motion for new trial. World Franchisers, Inc. v. Birk, 456 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.App.1970); Rickard v. Rickard, 428 S.W.2d 919 (Mo.App.1968). However, we will make the assumption that defendants were in good faith attempting to appeal from the judgment and forego summary disposition of their appeal for this infraction.
We are next confronted with plaintiff's contention that the brief of defendants is defective and fails to comply with Rules of Civil Procedure because neither of the points assigned was preserved in defendants' motion for new trial and they are mere abstract statements of law.
Defendants' assailed points are as follows: 'Plaintiff is bound by testimony offered in its own behalf if it stands uncontradicted by other testimony or by facts from which the jury might draw a contrary inference'; and, 'For a real estate agent with a non-exclusive listing, to recover a commission, he must be the procuring cause of the sale by setting in motion a series of events which, without a break in the continuity, result in the sale.'
There is merit in plaintiff's position. Rule 79.03 V.A.M.R. provides: 'Allegations of error, in order to be preserved for appellate review, must be presented to the trial court in a motion for a new trial . . ..' Rule 84.13(a) V.A.M.R. provides that 'no allegations of error shall be considered in any civil appeal from a jury tried case except such as have been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court.' The clear purpose of these rules is to give the trial judge an opportunity to correct error, without the delay, resultant expense and hardships of an appeal. Larson v. Alton & S. Ry. Co., 431 S.W.2d 687 (Mo.App.1968); Schneider v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 413 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1967). The motion for new trial filed by defendants does not contain the points here assigned.
Rule 84.04(d) V.A.M.R. states that the points relied on in appellate briefs 'shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous . . ..' (Emphasis added.) This rule also admonishes that setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court does not constitute compliance with the rule. Groh v. Shelton, 428 S.W.2d 911 (Mo.App.1968); Browning v. City of Poplar Bluff, 370 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App.1963). Here, defendants' points are abstract statements of law and no attempt is made to demonstrate how they are related to any action or ruling of the trial court. 1
Plaintiff has not formally sought dismissal of defendants' appeal and although '(w)e have no duty to seine through the entire brief in an effort to ascertain the points' on which defendants rely (Groh v. Shelton, supra, 428 S.W.2d at 915), we are reminded that 'our primary duty is to litigants rather than to counsel who represent them.' Ambrose v. M.F.A. Co-Operative Ass'n of St. Elizabeth, 266 S.W.2d 647, 650 (Mo. banc 1954) (concurring opinion). Further, that, despite noncompliance with the rules and deficiencies in briefs such as we have here, it has been in the past the policy to decide cases on the merits when reasonably possible. Wykle v. Colombo, 457 S.W.2d 695 (Mo.1970); Groh v. Shelton, supra. However, we caution that our benevolence in this case should not be misconstrued by those who do not deem it necessary to expedient to observe and follow the rules governing appeals. To paraphrase, we have hope and faith that our charity will not mislead or lull future appellants into a false sense of security. By reason of the additional jurisdiction of the Missouri Court of Appeals, brought about by the 1970 Amendment to the Missouri Constitution (Mo.Const. Art. 5, § 3, V.A.M.S.) and the subsequent decisions of our Supreme Court (Garrett v. State, 486 S.W.2d 272 (Mo.1972); Parks v. State, 492 S.W.2d 746 (Mo. banc 1973, No. 57,607)) the ever-increasing caseload makes it imperative that the Rules of Appellate Procedure be obeyed. 2
Turning to the argument portion of defendants' brief it appears that defendants are contending in this appeal that the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case for the jury to consider and thus their motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence (which was assigned as a ground in the motion for new trial) should have been sustained. This because, defendants say, there was an admission by plaintiff that plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the sale of defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skelton v. General Candy Co., 36912
...trial judge one last opportunity to correct his errors without the delay, expenses or hardships of an appeal. Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency v. Hemphill, 498 S.W.2d 599 (Mo.App.1973); Pasley v. Newton, The defense did make what could be construed as a specific objection to plaintiff's verdict ......
-
McIntosh v. Frisinger
...16, 19(2, 3) (Mo.App.1967). This court has looked with disfavor on such allegations and, as noted in Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill, 498 S.W.2d 599, 601(4) (Mo.App.1973), this court is not required or duty bound to "seine through the entire brief in an effort to ascertain the......
-
Belter v. Crouch Bros., Inc.
...of an appeal and are to be strictly enforced. Chambers v. Kansas City, 446 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Mo.1969); Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill, 498 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Mo.App.1973); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Heim, 483 S.W.2d 410, 414 (Mo.App.1972). If on appeal an alleged ......
-
Long v. Lincoln
...518 S.W.2d 710, 711(1) (Mo.App.1975); Kerr v. Ehinger, Inc., 515 S.W.2d 763, 765(2) (Mo.App.1974); Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill, 498 S.W.2d 599, 601(4) (Mo.App.1973). We would be well within our rights to dispatch the appeal for violation of Rule 84.04(d). Nevertheless, sin......