Ecton v. Kansas City, Osceola & Southern Railway Co.

56 Mo. App. 337, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 66
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 29, 1894·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Gill, J.

— The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the lower court, quashing an execution issued on a judgment, by him obtained, against the defendant. The cause originated in a justice’s court, where the defendant filed its motion to quash the execution. The motion was overruled by the justice, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. On a hearing there, the court sustained the motion, and plaintiff is the appellant here.

We are unable to review the action of the circuit court, as to its ruling on the motion, for the reason that the plaintiff saved no exceptions at the time of such ruling. This course we are compelled to pursue, under repeated decisions, in this state. As said in Bateson v. [338] Clark, 37 Mo. 34, this was a matter of mere exception, which arose from the action of the court during the progress of the trial, and is “strictly no part of the record, unless made so by being incorporated in a bill of exceptions, and, to entitle it to any notice, or be made available here, the action of the court must have been excepted to at the time the alleged error was committed. See, also, Corby v. Tracy, 62 Mo. 511.

The judgment must be affirmed;

All concur.

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

Ecton v. Kansas City, Osceola & Southern Railway Co., 56 Mo. App. 337, 1894 Mo. App. LEXIS 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1894).

56 Mo. App. 337 (Ecton v. Kansas City, Osceola & Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler County Railroad v. Barron
158 S.W. 872 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Pickel v. Pickel
159 S.W. 774 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Graff v. Dougherty
120 S.W. 661 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Boggs v. Pacific Steam Laundry Co.
86 Mo. App. 616 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)