Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins

PHOENIX STONE & LIME COMPANY v. GEORGE W. HUGGINS

Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins, 116 S.W. 458 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: February 1, 1909
Judges: Ellison
Citations: 116 S.W. 458136 Mo. App. 2091909 Mo. App. LEXIS 27
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 1

Headnotes

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract Motion: Bill of Exceptions': Supplemental Abstract. The abstract should show that the record proper discloses that the motion for new trial and the bill of exceptions were filed, and mere recitations in the bill itself will not suffice; and a supplemental abstract presented at the hearing cannot be noticed save by consent of the parties.

Summary

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — No». Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) The record in this cause printed and filed by the appellant fails to show the filing of a motion for a new trial, or the filing of a bill of exceptions, and therefore the exceptions relied upon by the appellant cannot be reviewed in this court, and there being no error assigned on the record proper the judgment should be affirmed. Harris v. Kobusch, 127 Mo. App. 441; Ellman v. Schultz, 127 Mo. App. 203; In re Boeckenkamp, Est., 127 Mo. App. 16; Downs v. Packing Co., 127 Mo. App. 688. •

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ellison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ELLISON, J.

This action is on an account for cut stone furnished defendant at his instance and request. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff.

*210 The abstract of the record presented here does not show by the record proper that any motion for new trial was filed, or that there was a bill of exceptions filed. The bill of exceptions shows those things, but it has been ruled a great number of times that they must be shown by the record proper.

Defendant presented at the hearing a paper denominated a supplemental abstract. This was done without consent and cannot be noticed. [Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561 , 111 S. W. 1131 ; Olay v. Pub. Co., 200 Mo. 665 ; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442 ; Stark v. Martin, 126 Mo. App. 575 ; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 630 ; Pennowfsky y. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135 ; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643 , 113 S. W. 1138 ; Gray v. Railway (decided this term).]

There being no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 1 case

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts1

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hopper v. Fulbright160 S.W. 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)

Most recent

Hopper v. Fulbright160 S.W. 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Thompson v. Ruddick, 111 S.W. 1131 (Mo. 1908)	12
	City of Macon ex rel. Quincy Nat'l Bank v. Jaeger, 113 S.W. 1138 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)	5
	Harding v. Bedoll, 100 S.W. 638 (Mo. 1907)	63
	Stark v. Zehnder, 102 S.W. 992 (Mo. 1907)	42
	Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 103 S.W. 542 (Mo. 1907)	28
	Clay v. Union Wholesale Publ'g Co., 98 S.W. 575 (Mo. 1906)	10
	Stark Bros. v. Martin, 105 S.W. 33 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)	4

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list