State ex rel. Robinson v. Wright
| Decision Date | 10 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | 33472 |
| Citation | 85 S.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROBINSON v. WRIGHT |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Overruled July 30, 1935.
Hull & Clevenger, of Platte City Cross & Cross and Crossan & Hall, of Kansas City, for relator.
W. H. H. Piatt, of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in prohibition. Our preliminary rule was issued, to which respondent judge made a voluminous return, consisting of eighty-nine pages, accompanied by 'suggestions in support thereof.' The return raised issues of fact. The reply was a general denial. There is no stipulation as to the facts, nor any request for a commissioner to hear and report thereon.
Our rule 33, relating to procedure as to original writs, provides, 'On final hearing printed abstracts and briefs shall be filed in all respects as is required in appeals and writs of error in ordinary cases.' Rules 11, 12, and 13 require that abstracts of the record shall in all cases of appeal and error be printed, etc. Relator has failed to comply with these rules in that he has not printed the record, or an abstract thereof. True, there is on file, in printed form, what is captioned 'Relator's Statement, Brief and Argument, and Abstract of the Record,' but an inspection of the portion purporting to be abstract of the record discloses that it is not an abstract of the record matter in the instant case. It wholly fails to contain a copy, or what purports to be a copy, of any of the pleadings in the case, namely, the petition, respondent's return, and the reply.
Being unable to ascertain the facts necessary to a decision of the case, and for the violation of the rules above mentioned, the preliminary rule should be quashed, and the proceeding dismissed (State ex rel. v. Huck, Judge, 260 Mo. 140, 168 S.W. 762; State ex rel. v. Lincoln et al. [Mo. Sup. 274 S.W. 677], and it is so ordered.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial