Thurman v. Smith
Decision Date | 21 May 1931 |
Docket Number | 29391 |
Parties | S. F. Thurman and F. R. Lynch, Appellants, v. John Smith |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
March 31, 1931.
Motion for Rehearing Overruled May 21, 1931.
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court; Hon Frank Kelly Judge; Opinion filed at October Term, 1930, March 31, 1931 motion for rehearing overruled at April Term, May 21, 1931.
Dismissed.
Edgar & Banta for appellant.
S. A. Bowman and E. C. Edgar for respondent.
Sturgis, C. Seddon and Ferguson, CC., concur.
This is a suit in ejectment for eighty acres of land in Washington County, though by stipulation of the parties only thirty-one acres is in controversy. The answer sets up title to the thirty-one acres by reason of adverse possession under claim of title for more than ten years. The trial resulted in a verdict of the jury in favor of defendant. On affidavit filed by plaintiffs an appeal was allowed to this court.
At the threshhold of this case there is forced on us the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to do other than dismiss the appeal. The plaintiffs as appellants have caused to be filed in this court what purports to be a copy of the "judgment and order granting appeal" certified to by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County. The clerk's certificate, which is in due form, says that same "is a full, true and complete copy of the judgment and order granting appeal in the case of S. F. Thurman and F. R. Lynch v. John Smith, as fully as the same appears of record in my office." What is set forth as the judgment so certified to, omitting caption, reads:
Here the matter ends. The next entry of record recites that on May 4, 1928, at the April Term, the plaintiffs file motion for new trial. The next entry of record is that on May 24, 1928, at the April Term, the motion for new trial is by the court overruled, and on the same date that the plaintiffs filed their affidavit for appeal and that the court grants the appeal prayed for to the Supreme Court of Missouri and grants ninety days in which to file bill of exceptions. This is all the matter covered by the clerk's certificate.
It is apparent that there is no judgment shown, and taking the clerk's certificate as true that the transcript is true and complete, no judgment was rendered. The petition prays judgment for possession and damages. The answer prays for affirmative relief in decreeing title in favor of defendant. The sufficiency of the verdict, being special and not general and containing no finding for either party, to warrant any judgment for defendant, is challenged, but we may grant that it is sufficient had a judgment been entered.
Plaintiffs as appellants have filed in this court their printed abstract of the record, which does not show the judgment entered, if any. The only reference to a judgment contained in the abstract is a statement in narrative form that the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant as to part of the real estate sued for "and on said verdict judgment was duly entered of record." We are not saying, however, that it would be sufficient if the printed abstract showed the judgment entered, or that this recital would be insufficient if there had been filed here a certified copy of the judgment and order granting the appeal.
In the present state of the record as presented here, we think it is clear that this court can do nothing except dismiss the appeal. Section 1027, Revised Statutes 1929 (Sec. 1478, R. S. 1919), makes all appeals taken more than sixty days before the next term of the Supreme Court returnable to such term, and provides that the appellant shall perfect his appeal in the manner and within the time provided by the next section (Sec. 1028, R. S. 1929). That section requires that the appellant shall cause to be filed in the appellate court within the time there specified "a perfect transcript of the record and proceedings in the cause, or in lieu of such transcript, a certified copy of the record entry of the judgment, order or decree appealed from in said cause . . . together with the order granting the appeal, and shall thereafter, . . . file printed abstracts of the entire record," etc.
It is apparent, therefore, that in order to give this court jurisdiction to hear the case on appeal, there must be filed here either a perfect transcript of the record of the trial court, which of course would include the judgment, or, in lieu thereof, a certified copy of the record entry of the judgment and order granting appeal, to be supplemented later by printed abstracts of the record. These two methods of lodging the case here for hearing on the appeal are sometimes called the "long form" and "short form," and one or the other must be complied with. The "long form" has now become almost obsolete except in criminal cases.
We have held so often that the right of appeal is purely statutory and that appellant must conform to the statute in order to have his case heard on the appeal, that we will not stop to cite cases; and it is equally well settled that this court must examine the record as to its jurisdiction whether such question is raised by the parties or not. [See 2 Mo. Dig. 360 and 369.]
Under the repeated rulings of this court, the certified copy of the judgment and order granting an appeal, filed in lieu of a complete certified...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pence v. Kansas City Laundry Service Co.
... ... Springfield Traction Co., 119 Mo.App. 358, 96 S.W. 421; ... Heyde v. Patten, 39 S.W.2d 813; Burton v ... Pryor, 198 S.W. 1117; Smith v. Ozark Water Mills ... Co., 238 S.W. 573. (b) The instruction directs a verdict ... for plaintiff, but does not require the jury to find that ... specified or reasonably within the statute. [ DeJarnett v ... Tickameyer, 328 Mo. 153, 40 S.W.2d 686; Thurman et ... al. v. Smith, 39 S.W.2d 336, 327 Mo. 894; Tevis v ... Foley, 30 S.W.2d 68, 325 Mo. 1050, 1053; Segall v ... Garlichs, 281 S.W. 693, ... ...
-
Fenton v. Thompson
... ... 1184, R.S. 1939. McClain v ... Kansas City Bridge Co., 338 Mo. 7, 88 S.W.2d 1019; ... Kinealy v. Macklin, 67 Mo. 95; Thurman v ... Smith, 39 S.W.2d 336, 327 Mo. 894; Hooper v ... Wineland, 131 S.W.2d 232; W.A. Ross Const. Co. v ... Chiles, 130 S.W.2d 524, 344 Mo ... ...
- Hunt v. Gus Gillerman Iron & Metal Co.
-
Harrison v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
... ... specified or reasonably within the statute. De Jarnett v ... Tickameyer, 328 Mo. 153, 40 S.W.2d 686; Thurman" et ... al. v. Smith, 327 Mo. 894, 39 S.W.2d 336; Stephens ... v. Oberman Mfg. Co., 334 Mo. 1078, 70 S.W.2d 899, and ... cases cited ... \xC2" ... ...