Seifert v. Seifert, 29773.
| Decision Date | 03 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 29773.,29773. |
| Parties | SEIFERT v. SEIFERT et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Osage County; Ransom A. Breuer, Judge.
Action by Henry Seifert against Ellen Seifert and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Geo. J. Gove, J. W. Vosholl, and Paul B. Dessieux, all of Linn, for appellant.
J. Richard Garstang and Marion R. Garstang, both of Chamois, for respondents.
Action to partition certain real estate described in plaintiff's petition. The trial below resulted in a judgment denying partition, and plaintiff appealed.
Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on seven different grounds, the first of which is that appellant's brief does not contain a statement of the facts of the case as required by section 1060, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. § 1060), and rules 15 and 16 of this court.
Section 1060, R. S. Mo. 1929, provides that on appeal or writs of error each party shall, on or before the day next preceding the day on which the cause is docketed for hearing, make out and furnish the court with a clear and concise statement of the case, and the points intended to be insisted on in argument. Rule 15 of this court provides that appellant's brief shall contain a fair and concise statement of the facts of the case without reiteration, statements of law, or argument. Our rule 16 provides that, if any appellant in any civil case fails to comply with rule 15, the court, when the cause is called for hearing, will dismiss the appeal, or, at the option of the respondent, continue the cause at the cost of the party in default.
This is not a case where a statement of facts is claimed to be defective or insufficient. There is no statement at all. Appellant did not even attempt to make a statement of the facts. In this state of the record, under the plain mandate of the statute and the rules of the court, it is our duty to dismiss the appeal. Johnston v. Johnston (Mo. Sup.) 16 S.W.(2d) 91; Sims v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 323 Mo. 447, 19 S.W.(2d) 294; Pfotenhauer v. Ridgway, 307 Mo. 529, 271 S. W. 50; Taylor v. Heart of America Hospital Ass'n, 222 Mo. App. 17, 2 S.W.(2d) 804. The purpose of the statute and the rules of the court which require an appellant to make a plain and concise statement of the facts of the case, under penalty of dismissal of the appeal for failure so to do, has been discussed by this and other courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahern v. Matthews
... ... S.W. 50; Bondurant v. Raven Coal Co., 25 S.W.2d 566; ... Supreme Court Rules, 15, 16; Seifert v. Seifert, 52 ... S.W.2d 817; State ex rel. Highway Comm. v. Shain, 62 ... S.W.2d 711. (4) ... ...
-
State ex rel. Alton R. Co. v. Shain
...Inc., v. Hostetter, 126 S.W.2d 1173; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Ellison, 280 Mo. 595; Longan v. K. C. Rys. Co., 299 Mo. 561; Seifert v. Seifert, 52 S.W.2d 817. (2) respondent judges in their opinion of this cause, did not overlook the question of "obliviousness," but in fact recognized, p......
-
State ex rel. Horton v. Bourke
...complete presentation of the ultimate facts. Sec. 1060 R. S. 1929, Rule 15, Mo. Sup. Ct.; Le Clair v. Le Clair, 77 S.W.2d 862; Seifert v. Seifert, 52 S.W.2d 817; Terry v. Ingraham, 12 S.W.2d 763; Sims Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 19 S.W.2d 294; Bank of Meta v. Schnitzler, 67 S.W.2d 106; Evans......
- Knaup v. Western Coal & Mining Co.