Campbell v. Sutton

Missouri Court of Appeals

Campbell v. Sutton

845 S.W.2d 642, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1893, 1992 WL 373548

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1992

DocketNo. 62256

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 S.W.2d 642 (Campbell v. Sutton) 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

Campbell v. Sutton, 845 S.W.2d 642, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1893, 1992 WL 373548 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (Debtor) appeals the jury award of $9,000 on Respondent’s (Creditor) action to recover an amount due and owing on a promissory note. Debtor has elected to handle his own appeal to his detriment. His brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 in most respects. Debtor alleges four points of error: (1) failure of Creditor to make a submissible case; (2) insufficient evidence to support the jury instructions; (3) improper introduction of evidence; and (4) failure to instruct on comparative fault. We are unable to review the record for these errors, because Debtor did not file a transcript of the trial proceedings showing wherein and how there was reversible error. Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co., 800 S.W.2d 806, 806[1] (Mo.App.1990); Verdin v. Agnew, 715 S.W.2d 544, 546[1] (Mo.App.1986); Cooper v. General Standard, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 117, 122[6] (Mo.App.1984). It is the duty of Debtor to furnish the transcript and in its absence there is nothing for us to review. Cooper, 674 S.W.2d at 122[6].

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (Debtor) appeals the jury award of $9,000 on Respondent’s (Creditor) action to recover an amount due and owing on a promissory note. Debtor has elected to handle his own appeal to his detriment. His brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 in most respects. Debtor alleges four points of error: (1) failure of Creditor to make a submissible case; (2) insufficient evidence to support the jury instructions; (3) improper introduction of evidence; and (4) failure to instruct on comparative fault. We are unable to review the record for these errors, because Debtor did not file a transcript of the trial proceedings showing wherein and how there was reversible error. Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co., 800 S.W.2d 806, 806[1] (Mo.App.1990); Verdin v. Agnew, 715 S.W.2d 544, 546[1] (Mo.App.1986); Cooper v. General Standard, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 117, 122[6] (Mo.App.1984). It is the duty of Debtor to furnish the transcript and in its absence there is nothing for us to review. Cooper, 674 S.W.2d at 122[6].

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 S.W.2d 642, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1893, 1992 WL 373548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-sutton-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack