Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Massey
This text of 75 Mo. App. 466 (Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Massey) 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.
Opinion
This is an action of replevin for one hundred and fifty bags of sugar and twenty-six barrels of sugar of the alleged value of $964. The petition is in the usual form. The answer was a general denial, except the possession of the property by defendants, [468]*468■which was admitted and claimed to be lawful, and a demand made a return of the property. The court gave judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.
The case comes to this court upon a certificate of judgment by the clerk and an original and “amended and enlarged abstract filed by appellant.” A careful examination of these shows that the bill of exceptions neither incorporates the motion for new. trial, nor directs the clerk to copy the same therein. This omission is fatal to the review of any matters of mere exception taken on the trial in the court belo#. State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 682; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 119; Critchfield v. Linville, 140 Mo. 191; R. S. 1889, sec. 2304. In this state of the record we can only consider the objections arising under the record proper. An inspection of this does, not show that the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendants. It will therefore be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 Mo. App. 466, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-sugar-refining-co-v-massey-moctapp-1898.