Bank of Monett v. Moulder

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bank of Monett v. Moulder

43 Mo. App. 279, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 26

DecidedJanuary 6, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Mo. App. 279 (Bank of Monett v. Moulder) 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

Bank of Monett v. Moulder, 43 Mo. App. 279, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered judgment, June 5, 1890, and the defendant appealed to this court on the following day. No transcript of the record was filed in this court until September 29, following, which was less than fifteen days before the beginning of the term to which the appeal was returnable. The respondent moves for an affirmance of the judgment because the transcript was not filed within the time required by law. Affidavits are filed in opposition to the motion, which show, as sole cause for the delay, that the appellant left the state shortly after the trial, and •failed to provide his attorneys with funds to pay for the transcript. This shows no diligence on part of appellant. One who takes an appeal must make timely provisions for its prosecution. Smith v. Merrill, 26 Mo. App. 65.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concur.

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

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered judgment, June 5, 1890, and the defendant appealed to this court on the following day. No transcript of the record was filed in this court until September 29, following, which was less than fifteen days before the beginning of the term to which the appeal was returnable. The respondent moves for an affirmance of the judgment because the transcript was not filed within the time required by law. Affidavits are filed in opposition to the motion, which show, as sole cause for the delay, that the appellant left the state shortly after the trial, and •failed to provide his attorneys with funds to pay for the transcript. This shows no diligence on part of appellant. One who takes an appeal must make timely provisions for its prosecution. Smith v. Merrill, 26 Mo. App. 65.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Mo. App. 279, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-monett-v-moulder-moctapp-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack