Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899

Lawson v. Mills

Supreme Court of Missouri · Decided June 14, 1899 · Marshall

150 Mo. 428; 51 S.W. 678; 1899 Mo. LEXIS 93

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

School District No. 1 v. Boyle (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
Dean & Ratcliffe v. Brockman (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
Bradbury v. Kerns (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
Thurman v. Smith (Mo. 1931)
Herman Savings Bank v. Kropp (Mo. 1915)
State ex rel. Wayne County v. Woods (Mo. 1911)
Bower v. Daniel (Mo. 1906)
Kirk v. Kane (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
Turney v. Ewins (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Crawford (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
Parry v. Gordon Coffee & Spice Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
City of St. Charles ex rel. Budd v. Deemar (Mo. 1903)
Estate of Pound v. Cassity (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
Lucas v. Huff (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
Clements v. Turner (Mo. 1901)
Burdick v. Security Life Ass'n (Mo. Ct. App. 1900)
Badger Lumber Co. v. Stepp (Mo. 1900)

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 of the Court

MARSHALL, J.

This cause is not before the court in such shape as to entitle the appellant to have the judgment of the circuit court reviewed. There is no “perfect transcript of the record and proceedings in the cause, or in lieu of such *429transcript, a certified copy of the record entry of the judgment, order or decree appealed from,” before the court, as is required by sec. 2235, E. S. 1889. A certified copy of what seems to have been a bill of exceptions filed in the trial court, has been filed in this court, but it is in no sense a perfect transcript. In fact there is nothing before this court showing any record entry in the causé whatever — nothing to show the institution of the action, the issuance of summons or the manner of executing it, no petition, answer or other pleading, a trial, j'udgment, motion for new trial, the filing of a bill of exceptions nor the granting of an appeal. The paper here filed is purely and simply a bill of exceptions in proper form to preserve matters of exception and make them part of the record, but there is no certified copy of any order of record showing that the bill of exceptions was ever filed, and this is absolutely necessary, as the bill of exception can not prove itself. [State v. Harris, 121 Mo. 445; Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. l. c. 653.] The bill of exceptions appears to have been filed after the term when the matters excepted to occurred, and there is no order of record showing that the trial court extended the time for filing the bill of exceptions beyond the term, which is a necessary requisite. The recitals to that effect in the bill of exceptions are not sufficient. [State v. Ryan, 120 Mo. 88; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. l. c. 119.]

The appellant therefore has wholly failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 2253, E. S. 1889. He has also failed to comply with rules 11, 12 and 13 of this court. No abstract of any kind has been filed in this court. What purports to be a statement and brief has been filed, presumably to comply with see. 2301, E. S. 1889, but even this is not “a clear and concise statement of the case.”

In this condition of the record the appeal must be dismissed. [Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652; Halstead v. Stone, 147 Mo. 649.]

It is so ordered.

All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.