Upton v. Castleman
| Decision Date | 07 April 1902 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | UPTON v. CASTLEMAN. |
Appeal from circuit court, Cooper county; James E. Hazell, Judge.
Action by C. W. Upton against Ben T. Castleman. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ben T. Castleman and John Cosgrove, for appellant. Wm. H. Martin, for respondent.
This suit was brought before a justice of the peace. The statement was to the effect that defendant in April, 1901, hired plaintiff to cut timber, make shingles, and put them on a certain house of the latter; the former to do all the hauling and furnish the nails required, and for all which such latter agreed to pay such former $85. Performance of the agreement, demand for payment by the plaintiff, and refusal by defendant, were further alleged. There was judgment in the circuit court for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
While what purports to be a bill of exceptions is copied into the abstract of the record, there appears to be nothing contained in the abstract of the record proper showing the filing of such bill. This is fatal. A bill of exceptions, as has been often ruled, cannot prove itself. As no such entry appears in the abstract of the record proper, the bill of exceptions cannot be noticed. State v. Ryan, 120 Mo. 88, 22 S. W. 486, 25 S. W. 351; Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652, 31 S. W. 37; Lawson v. Mills, 150 Mo. 428, 51 S. W. 678; Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 426, 52 S. W. 237; Butler Co. v. Graddy, 152 Mo. 441, 54 S. W. 219; Burdick v. Association, Shoenberg v. Heyer, Halyard v. Bratley, and Hill v. Coombs, decided at December, 1901, term, and not yet officially reported.
And as no error appears upon the face of the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial