Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. v. Hayes
| Citation | 217 S.W. 20 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 20449.,20449. |
| Parties | SQUAW CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. et al. v. HAYES et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Holt County; Alonzo D. Burns, Judge.
Controversy between the Squaw Creek Drainage District, Alvan Hayes, and others. From the judgment, Hayes and others appeal. On motion to dismiss. Appeal dismissed.
S. F. O'Fallon, of Oregon, Mo., A. M. Tibbels, of Mound City, H. B. Williams, of Craig, and R. B. Bridgeman, of Oregon, Mo., for appellants.
W. H. Richards, of Oregon, Mo., and M. G. Roberts, of St. Joseph, for respondents.
Appellants appeal from a judgment entered in a certain drainage proceeding in the circuit court of Holt county.
At the outset we are met by respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that appellants have failed to comply with rule 15 of this court (198 S. W. vi).
Rule 15, among other things, provides as follows:
"The brief for appellant shall distinctly allege the errors committed by the trial court, and shall contain in addition thereto: (1) A fair and concise statement of the facts of the case without reiteration, statements of law, or argument; (2) a statement, in numerical order, a the points relied on, with citation of authorities thereunder," etc.
Upon examining appellant's brief herein we find that it fails to comply with the above rule. It nowhere distinctly alleges any error which it is claimed the trial court committed. Neither does the brief contain a concise statement of the facts of the case, nor does it contain a statement in numerical order of the points relied on with citations of authorities thereunder.
The observance of this rule works no hardship upon appellants, but, as has frequently been stated by this court, the enforcement of the rule is "well-nigh indispensable to the proper dispatch of appellate work."
It is clearly our duty in the premises to dismiss the appeal. Rule 16 of this court (186 S. W. viii); Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. 529, 175 S. W. 199, and cases therein cited.
The appeal is dismissed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Gutshall
...have not met the requirement of many recent cases in the Supreme Court; Frick v. Millers' Ins. Co., 213 S. W. 854; Squaw Creek Dist. v. Hayes, 217 S. W. 20; Hanchett Bond Co. v. Palm, 220 S. W. 673; Duffy v. Allen, 220 S. W. 857; Big Tarkio Drainage Dist. v. Peters, 220 S. W. 874; Still v. ......
-
Marlatt v. Columbia Nat. Bank
... ... 854; ... Cavanaugh v. Dyer, 215 S.W. 481; Drainage ... District v. Hayes, 217 S.W. 20.] The object of our ... ...
- Reach v. St. Louis American League Baseball Co.
-
Lux v. Milwauke Mechanics Ins. Co.
...be dismissed (McGee v. Dunnigan [Sup.] 218 S. W. 934; Frick v. Millers' National Ins. Co. [Sup.] 213 S. W. 854; Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Hayes [Sup.] 217 S. W. 20; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 204 Mo. 529, 175 S. W. 199); and it is so ...