Dean & Ratcliffe v. Brockman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dean & Ratcliffe v. Brockman

106 S.W. 592, 128 Mo. App. 77, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 552

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 S.W. 592 (Dean & Ratcliffe v. Brockman) 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

Dean & Ratcliffe v. Brockman, 106 S.W. 592, 128 Mo. App. 77, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 552 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTONI, P. J.

The appeal in this case is in the short form contemplated in section 813, Revised Statutes 3899. It is provided in that section that when the appellant avails himself of its provisions and files only a copy of the judgment and order granting the appeal in this court, as was done in this case, he shall also file “printed abstracts of the entire record in the office of the clerk of such appellate court.” Upon examination, we find there has been no such printed abstract of the entire record as required by the statute filed in this case. The appellant has filed a pamphlet entitled, “Statement, Points and Authorities for Appellant,” in which there is a short recitation of some facts only. There is not a word in this pamphlet showing it to be an abstract of the entire record in the case. In fact neither the petition, ansAver, reply, verdict, nor any other matter of record prior to the judgment, is mentioned therein. In this state of affairs, it is certainly impossible for the court to knoAV the nature of the cause or the issues in the court beloAV.

Inasmuch as respondents move a dismissal of the appeal for the reasons above stated, it will be ordered, as Avas done in the cases of Goesse & Remmers Bldg. & Const. Co. v. Kinnerk, 97 S. W. 218; Lawson v. Mills, 150 Mo. 428, 51 S. W. 678. The appeal is dismissed.

Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

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

NORTONI, P. J.

The appeal in this case is in the short form contemplated in section 813, Revised Statutes 3899. It is provided in that section that when the appellant avails himself of its provisions and files only a copy of the judgment and order granting the appeal in this court, as was done in this case, he shall also file “printed abstracts of the entire record in the office of the clerk of such appellate court.” Upon examination, we find there has been no such printed abstract of the entire record as required by the statute filed in this case. The appellant has filed a pamphlet entitled, “Statement, Points and Authorities for Appellant,” in which there is a short recitation of some facts only. There is not a word in this pamphlet showing it to be an abstract of the entire record in the case. In fact neither the petition, ansAver, reply, verdict, nor any other matter of record prior to the judgment, is mentioned therein. In this state of affairs, it is certainly impossible for the court to knoAV the nature of the cause or the issues in the court beloAV.

Inasmuch as respondents move a dismissal of the appeal for the reasons above stated, it will be ordered, as Avas done in the cases of Goesse & Remmers Bldg. & Const. Co. v. Kinnerk, 97 S. W. 218; Lawson v. Mills, 150 Mo. 428, 51 S. W. 678. The appeal is dismissed.

Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.W. 592, 128 Mo. App. 77, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-ratcliffe-v-brockman-moctapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack