Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Glasner

• Decision Date: 14 June 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 237,150 Mo. 426
• Parties: WESTERN STORAGE & WAREHOUSE CO. v. GLASNER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 S.W. 237

150 Mo. 426

WESTERN STORAGE & WAREHOUSE CO. v. GLASNER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 14, 1899.

APPEAL — DISMISSAL — CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT — STATUTE AND RULES OF COURT.

Where an appeal is taken on a certificate of the judgment, but instead of filing a printed abstract of record, as required by rule 11 of the supreme court (31 S. W. v.), and by Rev. St. 1889, § 2253, providing for the filing of abstracts of record in appeals taken on a certificate of judgment, appellants file what they designate a "Complete Record," which is not certified by the clerk of the trial court, in compliance with rule 14 of the court, and which does not contain the record proper, or a single record entry or averment or statement of what the record proper shows, except a statement of the filing of the suit, the change of venue, and the pleadings and decree, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Action of interpleader by the Western Storage & Warehouse Company against A. H. Glasner and others, S. J. Smith, and B. Hoyt. There was a judgment for Smith, and Glasner and others appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Hamner, Hardin & Hamner, for appellants. Dobson & McCune, for respondent Western Storage & Warehouse Co. Botsford, Deatherage & Young, for respondent Smith.

MARSHALL, J.

This is an interpleader between Glasner and others, holders of two mortgages on 95 barrels of whisky, and Smith, who claims under a warehouse certificate. Appellants claim that Smith's lien is void, under the act of 1891 (Acts 1891, p. 171), because the loan which the certificate secured is usurious. The circuit court decided in Smith's favor, and Glasner and others brought the case here on a certificate of the judgment, as allowed by section 2253, Rev. St. 1889. But instead of a printed abstract of the record, which that section of the statutes and rule 11 of this court (31 S. W. v.) require to be filed, the appellants have filed what they call a "Complete Record," covering 170 printed pages, which sets out the pleadings, the bill of exceptions, including the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence in full, the instructions asked and refused, the decree, the motion for new trial, and the rulings and exceptions, but there is no abstract of the record filed. In this respect the appellants have failed to comply with the statute, and with rule 11 of this court. Neither can this volume be construed to be a compliance with rule 14 of this court (16 S. W. vi.), which permits printed transcripts to be filed in lieu of a manuscript record; for it is not certified by the clerk of the trial court. Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652, 31 S. W. 37; Brand v. Cannon, 118 Mo. 595, 24 S. W. 434; Halstead v....