Walner v. Wade
| Decision Date | 16 April 1907 |
| Parties | WALNER v. WADE et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.
Action by Anna Walner against William Wade and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Wear & Mason, for appellants. O. T. Hamlin, for respondent.
The appeal is here on a certified copy of the judgment appealed from and order granting the appeal, and on printed abstracts.
The abstracts of the record contain nothing but a copy of the petition. It is nowhere recited therein that a motion for new trial was filed, or that the bill of exceptions was filed. The bill of exceptions recites that motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. It recites that time in which to file bill of exceptions was extended from time to time, and, on December 10, 1906, the bill of exceptions was "signed, sealed, and made a part of the record," but does not recite that it was filed. It has been stated over and over again that matters of which a record entry is made on the minutes of the circuit court must appear by the record, and, if the case is brought up on short form, the abstracts must show such matters appear of record, and that this showing cannot be made by recital of the facts in the bill of exceptions. The filing of a motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment are matters of record, and must be shown by the record proper. A recital in the bill of exceptions that they were filed is insufficient. Lapsley v. Merchants' Bank, 105 Mo. App. 98, 78 S. W. 1095; Parry & Gordon v. Coffee & Spice Co., 98 Mo. App. 409, 72 S. W. 130; Kirk v. Kane, 97 Mo. App. 556, 71 S. W. 463. So also is the filing of the bill of exceptions a matter of record, and its filing must be shown by the record proper; and, if not so shown, there is nothing before the appellate court for review but the pleadings. St. Charles ex rel. v. Deemar, 174 Mo. 122, 73 S. W. 469; Wilson v. Railway, 167 Mo. 323, 66 S. W. 928; Roush v. Cunningham, 163 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Reichmann
...Wade, 124 Mo.App. 496. It must appear from the record proper that a bill of exceptions was filed. The bill cannot prove itself. Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo.App. 496. (b) Also, in that any matter of exception may be reviewable, it must appear from the record proper that a motion for a new trial w......
-
State ex rel. Chester, Perryville & Ste. Genevieve Railway Company v. Turner
... ... 660; ... LaFollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Wilson v ... Railroad, 167 Mo. 324; State v. Borders, 228 ... Mo. 480, 128 S.W. 737; Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo.App ... 496; Fast v. Gray, 105 Mo.App. 695. (2) Prima facie, ... the measure of respondent's damages resulting from such ... ...
-
State v. Turner
...Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; Wilson v. Railroad, 167 Mo. 323, 66 S. W. 928; State v. Borders, 228 Mo. 478, 480, 128 S. W. 737; Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo. App. 496, 101 S. W. 686; Fast v. Gray, 105 Mo. App. 694, 78 S. W. Looking at the facts recited in the opinion in the Callier Case, 158 Mo. App. 249......
-
Brown v. Reichman, 26003.
...Boxerman and Wm. H. Allen for respondent. (1) (a) Kiel v. Osterwald, 33 S.W. (2d) 778; Brumley v. Thornberry, 226 S.W. 624; Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo. App. 496. It must appear from the record proper that a bill of exceptions was filed. The bill cannot prove itself. Walner v. Wade, 124 Mo. App.......