Collins v. Barding

65 Mo. 496
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Action on promissory notes, the questions in the case all concerning the pleas of payment and of the statute of limitations. It is impossible lor us to notice the alleged errors, as the motion for a new trial has not been incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Mere ref[497] erence to the page of the transcript will not answer. Motions must be incorporated in the bill in order to be regarded by ns—(Pacific R. R. Co. v. Opel, decided at last term). As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Affirmed.

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

Collins v. Barding, 65 Mo. 496 (Mo. 1877).

65 Mo. 496 (Collins v. Barding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNeil v. Home Insurance
30 Mo. App. 306 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Story & Camp v. Ragsdale
30 Mo. App. 196 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Holt v. Simmons
14 Mo. App. 450 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1883)
McKee v. Calvert
80 Mo. 348 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Bevin v. Powell
11 Mo. App. 216 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
State v. Sweeney
68 Mo. 96 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1878)
Robinson v. Hood
67 Mo. 660 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1878)