Weber Implement Co. v. Hill

• Decision Date: 06 December 1909
• Citation: 123 S.W. 547
• Parties: WEBER IMPLEMENT CO. v. HILL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

123 S.W. 547

WEBER IMPLEMENT CO. v. HILL.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 6, 1909.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 502) — RECORD — BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — FILING.

The record proper should show the filing of motion for new trial and bill of exceptions, and it is not sufficient that the filing is shown by what purports to be a bill of exceptions.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 590) — RECORD — DEFECTS — AMENDMENT.

After appellee had prepared his briefs and made the point that the record did not show the filing of motion for new trial or bill of exceptions, it could not avail appellant to file a supplemental abstract without leave, and over the objection of appellee.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1135) — RECORD — DEFECTS — AFFIRMANCE.

Where there is no matter of exception before the court on appeal, and it finds no error in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; A. D. Barnes, Special Judge.

Action by the Weber Implement Company against J. E. Hill. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. J. Walker, for appellant. Gillespy & Conley, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This action was begun before a justice of the peace on a promissory note. On appeal to the circuit court judgment was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

The record presented does not show that any motion for new trial was filed. Nor does it show the filing of a bill of exceptions. These things appear in what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but the place for them is in the record proper.

After defendant had prepared his briefs and made the point, plaintiff then asked leave of court to file a supplemental abstract, and without obtaining such leave did file such supplement. This cannot be allowed over the objection of the other party. Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625, 100 S. W. 638; Everett v. Butler, 192 Mo. 564, 91 S. W. 890; Redd v. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. App. 93, 98 S. W. 89; Cross v. Henderson, 129 Mo. App. 537, 107 S. W. 1107.

There being no matter of exception before us, we are left to the record proper, and, finding no error therein, the judgment will be affirmed. Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561, 111 S. W. 1131; Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643, 113 S. W. 1138; Stark Bros. v. Martin, 126 Mo. App. 575, 105 S. W. 33. All concur.