Davis v. Long
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Hedrick v. Director of Revenue (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)
- Marriage of Yung v. Yung (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
- Hovis v. Director of Revenue (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
- Krasney v. Curators of the University of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
- Asarco, Inc. v. McNeill (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
- Ellis v. Farmers Insurance Group (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
- Yost Ex Rel. Yost v. State (Utah 1981)
- Feely v. Birenbaum (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
- Galpine v. Duffe (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)
- Kohler v. Blunt (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
- Hargrove v. Hankins Construction Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
- Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Inman Oil Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)
- General Growth Properties v. Oval Office, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)
- Cooper v. General Standard, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)
- Carver v. Carver (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)
- Owens v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)
- Garney Companies, Inc. v. H & K Development, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)
- Williams v. Clean Coverall Supply Co., Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)
- City of St. Clair v. Cash (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
- Pine Lawn Bank & Trust Co. v. Schnebelen (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
- Johnston v. Johnston (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
- Warren v. Drake (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
- Thompson v. State (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
- Allen v. Curry (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
- State v. Clifton (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant-garnishor has lodged this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Bollinger County directing respondent-garnishee to pay over to the sheriff the sum of $28.89 under a garnishment initiated by appellant-garnishor. Appellant-garnishor contends she was entitled to a default judgment for a larger sum to be applied on a child support judgment she obtained in 1969 against her former husband, the named defendant.
Initially, we note that garnishment is in aid of an execution and is merely an ancillary remedy to obtain payment of a judgment, and a valid judgment and a valid execution are indispensable prerequisites to a valid garnishment. Fulkerson v. Laird, 421 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Mo.App. 1967).
The transcript filed herein by the appellant is fatally deficient inasmuch as it does not reveal that an execution on the support judgment was issued in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 76.02; § 513.025. 1 Consequently, we do not know when and to whom an execution was issued [Rule 76.05; § 513.035], the return date thereof [Rule 76.04, § 513.030], when, if ever, an execution was returned into the court, or what entries pertaining thereto were made by the clerk [Rule 76.07, § 513.-045]. Likewise, the record is silent as to those matters which are required to demonstrate compliance with Rule 85.21, 90.02, and 90.05 [§§ 521.170, 525.020, and 525.-060].
If an appellant desires review of an issue it is his duty to furnish a transcript containing all the records, proceed *9 ings and evidence relating thereto, and where there is an absence of such items there is nothing for an appellate court to decide. Edwards v. Hrebec, 414 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App. 1967). Rule 81.14 specifies with particularity the matters to be included in the transcript and those matters to be omitted. Review in a case cannot be bottomed on documents not offered in evidence nor included in the appeal transcript. Recitals contained in motions, extraneous statements by counsel, and statements unsupported by the record contained in an appellate brief do not rise to the dignity of proof and thus are insufficient to supply essential matters for review.
Appeal dismissed.
All concur.
. References to rules are to the Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure, V.A.M.R., and to statutes are to RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.