A. A. Cooper Wagon & Buggy Co. v. Cornell

Missouri Court of Appeals

A. A. Cooper Wagon & Buggy Co. v. Cornell

111 S.W. 521, 131 Mo. App. 344, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 443

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 S.W. 521 (A. A. Cooper Wagon & Buggy Co. v. Cornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. A. Cooper Wagon & Buggy Co. v. Cornell, 111 S.W. 521, 131 Mo. App. 344, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

This action is based on two promissory notes. A demurrer was sustained to the petition and plaintiff appealed.

There is no proper or sufficient abstract of the record. Among other defects there is nothing to show that a certified copy of the judgment appealed from and order granting the appeal, was ever filed in this court. [Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625, 630; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135.]

Again, it appears that a final judgment was not rendered. The entry is that “Plaintiff refusing to plead further. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that plaintiff take nothing by this suit and that plaintiff pay all costs herein laid out and expended.” By [346]*346this the defendant is not discharged of the writ, that he go hence. Nor is there a judgment in favor of defendant for costs and that he have execution. The entry is not a judgment under either of the following cases: Lisle v. Rhea, 9 Mo. 172; Jones v. Hoppie, 9 Mo. 173; Rogers v. Gosnell, 51 Mo. 468; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 244. The judgment as entered will not support an appeal. [Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278; Conn v. Ferree, 60 Mo. 17; Crockett v. Lewis, 66 Mo. 671; Lyons v. Rollinson, 109 Mo. App. 68.]

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLISON, J.

This action is based on two promissory notes. A demurrer was sustained to the petition and plaintiff appealed.

There is no proper or sufficient abstract of the record. Among other defects there is nothing to show that a certified copy of the judgment appealed from and order granting the appeal, was ever filed in this court. [Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625, 630; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135.]

Again, it appears that a final judgment was not rendered. The entry is that “Plaintiff refusing to plead further. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that plaintiff take nothing by this suit and that plaintiff pay all costs herein laid out and expended.” By [346]*346this the defendant is not discharged of the writ, that he go hence. Nor is there a judgment in favor of defendant for costs and that he have execution. The entry is not a judgment under either of the following cases: Lisle v. Rhea, 9 Mo. 172; Jones v. Hoppie, 9 Mo. 173; Rogers v. Gosnell, 51 Mo. 468; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 237, 244. The judgment as entered will not support an appeal. [Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278; Conn v. Ferree, 60 Mo. 17; Crockett v. Lewis, 66 Mo. 671; Lyons v. Rollinson, 109 Mo. App. 68.]

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.W. 521, 131 Mo. App. 344, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-a-cooper-wagon-buggy-co-v-cornell-moctapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack