Finlay v. Gill

Missouri Court of Appeals

Finlay v. Gill

80 Mo. App. 458, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 188

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 Mo. App. 458 (Finlay v. Gill) 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

Finlay v. Gill, 80 Mo. App. 458, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

This is a proceeding brought under the provisions of sections 580 and 586, Revised Statutes, to avoid a judgment obtained on constructive notice, in which the defendants prevailed and the plaintiff appealed here.

The plaintiff, appellant here, demands a reversal of the judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his application for a change of venue. This application constituted no part of the record unless made so by bill of exceptions. Evans v. Trenton, 112 Mo. 390; Stearns v. Railway, 94 Mo. 317; Williams v. Williams, 26 Mo. App. 408. It does not appear from the record or from the indorsements on the supposed bill of exceptions that it was ever filed and it must therefore be disregarded as not being properly authenticated. Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; State v. Rolley, 135 Mo. 677.

No error is perceived on the'face of the record proper and it therefore results that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

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

SMITH, P. J.

This is a proceeding brought under the provisions of sections 580 and 586, Revised Statutes, to avoid a judgment obtained on constructive notice, in which the defendants prevailed and the plaintiff appealed here.

The plaintiff, appellant here, demands a reversal of the judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his application for a change of venue. This application constituted no part of the record unless made so by bill of exceptions. Evans v. Trenton, 112 Mo. 390; Stearns v. Railway, 94 Mo. 317; Williams v. Williams, 26 Mo. App. 408. It does not appear from the record or from the indorsements on the supposed bill of exceptions that it was ever filed and it must therefore be disregarded as not being properly authenticated. Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199; State v. Rolley, 135 Mo. 677.

No error is perceived on the'face of the record proper and it therefore results that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Mo. App. 458, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finlay-v-gill-moctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack