TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Treice v. Holladay

John P. Treice v. H. N. Holladay

Treice v. Holladay, 40 Mo. App. 575 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 15, 1890
Judges
Thompson
Citations
40 Mo. App. 5751890 Mo. App. LEXIS 544
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Practice, Appellate: bill or exceptions. The ruling of a trial court in dismissing a cause upon motion of the appellee cannot be reviewed on appeal, if the motion, though copied into the transcript, is not preserved by the bill of exceptions.
Summary
Appeal from the Butler Circuit Court— Hon. John Gh Wear, 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 — Thompson

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

Thompson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause was commenced before a justice of the peace, and was appealed to the circuit court, where the plaintiff was allowed to file a “supplied account” in place of the original, which had been lost. There were then two trials, in both of which the juries failed to agree. Thereafter the court sustained a motion of the defendant to dismiss the cause. The entry of record, sustaining the motion and dismissing the cause, does not show on what ground the dismissal was predicated.

There is no bill of exceptions. What purports to be the motion, which the court sustained in dismissing the cause, is copied by the clerk into the transcript; but, in pursuance of a well-settled and oft-repeated rule, we cannot look to this motion for any purpose whatever; we cannot judicially know its contents, because it is not brought to our attention by a bill of exceptions. Our *576 last decision on this point is Monroe City Bank v. Finks, ante, p. 367, in which we again went over the authorities for the instruction of those members of the bar who seem not to have learned the rule.

We are, therefore, called upon by this appeal to say, upon an inspection of the record proper, whether the court erred in dismissing the suit. We cannot say that it did. Many reasons exist why a suit may be dismissed without error, and, unless it is made to appear in an appellate court that a dismissal was made for a reason insufficient in law, the judgment of dismissal cannot be reversed. Judgment affirmed.

All the judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Union Brewing Co. v. Ehlhardt120 S.W. 1193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Union Brewing Co. v. Ehlhardt120 S.W. 1193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)

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