TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baker v. Loring

Baker v. Loring, 65 Mo. 527 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1877
Judges
Sherwood
Citations
65 Mo. 527
Headnotes
1. Practice, Civil: supplying imperfections in the transcript. An imperfect transcript of the record of the trial court cannot be perfected in the Supreme Court by merely bringing up, without certiorari or agreement of parties, an additional transcript sworn to contain, as near as the affiant can recollect, the full contents of the missing paper. 2. Bill of Exceptions: motions for new trial and in arrest. A - bill of exceptions should be filed during the term at which the appeal is taken, or, if in vacation, by consent; and should contain the motion for new trial and the motion in arrest.
Summary
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court.-—Hon. Jos. P. Grubb, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sherwood

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

Sherwood C. J.

Suit, to enforce mechanics’ lien, resulting in judgment for $51.30. The transcript does not favor us with the second amended petition, nor the answer thereto. Nor is their lack supplied by what is endorsed “ additional transcript,” brought to this court, without certiorari or agreement of parties. This novel document purports to contain a copy of the missing petition, “ as near as the affiant is able to recollect the full contents of said second amended petition.” This paper is called “ substituted second amended petition,” and filed with the clerk in vacation, without notice to or assent from the adverse party. It is not necessary to say that it is not the proper method of supplying the record, nor of perfecting transcripts found to be imperfect on their arrival in this court. Besides that, it does not appear that the bill of exceptions, so-called, .was ever filed during the term at which the appeal was taken, nor by consent in vacation. But treating the instrument in question as a bill of exceptions, will avail the defendant nothing, since neither the motion for new trial nor in arrest are incorporated *528 therein. We discover no error in the record, and, satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal, accordingly affirm the judgment, with ten per cent, damages.

All concur.

Arrirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1883–1884: 11885–1886: 11887–1888: 21889–1890: 11891–1892: 11893–1894: 11897–1898: 118832026peak 1887 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McIntire v. McIntire80 Mo. 470 (1883)
  2. State v. Griffin98 Mo. 672 (1889)
  3. Cuomo v. City of St. Joseph24 Mo. App. 567 (1887)
  4. State v. Steen22 S.W. 461 (Mo. 1893)
  5. Smith v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.91 Mo. 58 (1886)
  6. Reynolds v. Citizens' Railway Co.47 S.W. 895 (Mo. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Reynolds v. Citizens' Railway Co.47 S.W. 895 (Mo. 1898)
  2. State v. Steen22 S.W. 461 (Mo. 1893)
  3. B. S. Williams & Co. v. Kitchen43 Mo. App. 338 (1891)
  4. State v. Griffin98 Mo. 672 (1889)
  5. Jones v. Christian24 Mo. App. 540 (1887)
  6. Cuomo v. City of St. Joseph24 Mo. App. 567 (1887)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list