Walker Bros., Inc. v. J. K. Seear (U.S.A.) Limited

• Decision Date: 03 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. 23531,23531
• Parties: WALKER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent, v. J. K. SEEAR (U.S.A.) LTD., and Ingolf H. E. Otto, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 51

364 S.W.2d 51

WALKER BROTHERS, INC., Respondent, v. J. K. SEEAR (U.S.A.) LTD., and Ingolf H. E. Otto, Appellants.

No. 23531.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 3, 1962.

Elwyn L. Cady, Jr., Kansas City, for appellants.

Day & Bonewits, William M. Day and D. D. Bonewits, Kansas City, for respondent.

CROSS, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover of defendants a claimed balance of indebtedness allegedly arising from a series of business transactions between the parties and growing out of mutual accounts. Trial to the court resulted in a judgment for $1810.00 in plaintiff's favor. Defendants appeal.

Our first concern is whether defendants are in compliance with Civil Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R., which requires (among other things) that the brief for appellant shall contain a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument 'in the form of a statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination.'

Defendants' brief contains eleven lines of printing bearing the caption 'Statement of The Facts'. We quote the purported statement, in its entirety, as follows:

'Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the general insurance business, operation of farms, machine-contract work and the operation of a machine shop (7). Plaintiff's secretary-treasurer, William C. Walker (7), entered into a business relation with defendant Otto, Walker acting as an insurance broker in the brokering of long-haul truck insurance (9) and Otto acting as agent for the Mid-Union Indemnity Company (31).

'The parties agree that various insurance policies were issued to H. L. and R. L. Bennett; Estes M. Philpott; and Jay Shastid--all by the Mid-Union Indemnity Company (4).

'The record indicates no assignment of these policies, but it does indicate that the Mid-Union Indemnity Company canceled the policies (33)'.

The foregoing quoted matter is not 'a statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination'. Absent from it is any reference to the subject matter of the suit. We are unable to learn from it even the general nature of the controversy. It says nothing of the pleadings, fails to define the issues, omits any reference to the trial, makes no mention of the judgment, and narrates no evidence of any material substance. Consequently, the 'statement' does not satisfy the requirements of Civil Rule 83.05 or serve its intended purposes. In order to comply with that rule, 'the statement of facts should tell the appellate court what the law suit is about and should be in narrative form.' Page v. Laclede Gas Light Co., Mo.Sup., 245 S.W.2d 23. Nor is the deficiency supplied elsewhere in defendants' brief. Hence, as was said by the Supreme Court in Seifert v. Seifert, Mo.Sup., 52 S.W.2d 817: 'This is not a case where a statement of facts is claimed to be defective or insufficient. There is no statement at all. Appellant did not even attempt to make a...