State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Shain
Decision Date | 20 July 1933 |
Docket Number | 32794 |
Parties | State ex rel. State Highway Commission, Relator, v. Hopkins B. Shain, Francis H. Trimble and Ewing C. Bland, Judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Preliminary writ denied.
John W Mather, Jean Paul Bradshaw and Ralph M. Eubanks for relator.
Ira H Lohman and Irwin & Bushman for respondents.
Original proceeding in mandamus. Relator seeks to compel the judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals to set aside its order dismissing the appeal in the case of Euler v. State Highway Commission and to reinstate said case on its docket.
The case was before said court at the March Term, 1931. At that time the judgment was affirmed because of certain defects in the abstract. However, appellant under Rule 15 of said court sought to correct said defects by filing a supplemental abstract. The Court of Appeals ruled that the correction was not authorized under the rule. In an original proceeding in mandamus in this court it was ruled to the contrary, and the Court of Appeals was commanded to proceed in due course to a disposition of the case. [State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Trimble, 329 Mo. 987, 47 S.W.2d 779.]
The State Highway Commission (appellant) then filed a new abstract and brief in said court. Thereupon respondent Euler filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the abstract did not comply with Section 1028, Revised Statutes 1929, and Rule 15 of said court.
He also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the statement of the case made by appellant (State Highway Commission) did not comply with Section 1060, Revised Statutes 1929, and Rule 16 of said court.
The section requires a clear and concise statement of the case. The rule also requires a clear and concise statement that the court may be informed of the material facts from the statement without being compelled to glean them from the abstract of the record.
The motions were sustained. In doing so the court said:
[Euler v. State Highway Comm., 55 S.W.2d 719, l. c. 722.]
The circumstances considered, the statement should speak for itself. It follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bovard v. Bovard
... ... jurisdiction over the real estate. State ex rel. v ... Landwehr, 27 S.W.2d 25; State ex ... dismissed. State ex rel. State Highway Comm. of Mo. v ... Shain, 333 Mo. 235, 62 ... 1014, l.c. 1019 (1); Houts, Missouri Pleading and Practice, ... vol. 2, p. 525, sec ... ...
-
Produce Exchange Bank of Kansas City v. Winn
... ... Holt, Commissioner of Finance of the State in Charge of the Liquidation Thereof, v ... 36311 Supreme Court of Missouri November 22, 1939 ... Appeal ... case." Consult State ex rel. v. Shain, 333 Mo ... 235, 62 S.W.2d 711; ... ...
-
Langley v. Imperial Coal Co.
... ... COMPANY, RESPONDENT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityApril 1, 1940 ... compensation commission as a basis for the award were ... supported by ... v. State Highway Comm., 55 S.W.2d 719, l. c. 722; ... te ex. rel. State Highway Comm. v. Shain, 333 Mo ... 235, ... ...