Fulkerson v. Houts

55 Mo. 301
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 55 Mo. 301 (Fulkerson v. Houts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fulkerson v. Houts, 55 Mo. 301 (Mo. 1874).

Opinion

Sherwood, Jadge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought in the Common Pleas Court of Johnson county. By an act approved March 2oth, 1872, it is provided among other things, that the act approved March 12th, 1867, by which that court was established, should be repealed, and that such repeal should take effect from and after the 1st day of July, 1872; and also that all actions, suits, &c., not transferred by the act of the parties to the Circuit Court of Johnson County on or before the date last mentioned, should by operation of that act be immediately thus transferred. (Laws 1872, pp. 270, 271, §§ 2, 3, 6.)

"What purports to be a bill of exceptions in this case is dated and signed July 31st, 1872, by the former judge of the Common Pleas Court, long after that court had been abolished by the force and effect of the above recited act. In addition to that, the alleged bill does not appear to have ever been filed by the clerk. Not only must the bill be signed by the judge, but be filed also “during the term of the court at which it is taken, and not after.” (Wagn. Stat., 1043, §28; Id. 1044, § 31; West vs. Fowler, ante p. 300 and cases cited.).

An examination of the sections above mentioned will conclusively show, that the bill, until both signed and filed, forms no part of the record. The term “filed” as above employed has a broader signification than the mere indorsement to that effect, and comprehends more especially, in its proper interpretation, the entry made by the clerk on the record, by which [303]*303the fact, that the bill has been allowed, is announced and appropriately evidenced. The law has in its wisdom thrown around these instruments, upon which so much depends, these safeguards of authenticity, and we will not be unmindful of its behests. -

Judgment affirmed;

the other judges concur.

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

Related

Perringer v. Unknown Heirs of Raub
254 S.W. 703 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
State v. Prince
167 S.W. 535 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Wilson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
66 S.W. 928 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Haydon v. Alkire Grocery Co.
88 Mo. App. 241 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Steinberg v. Phœnix Insurance
49 Mo. App. 255 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
State v. Wilson
44 Mo. App. 136 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
B. S. Williams & Co. v. Kitchen
43 Mo. App. 338 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Taylor v. Scott
26 Mo. App. 249 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Cunningham v. Wells
16 Mo. App. 78 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Ford v. Brooks
35 La. Ann. 151 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1883)
Clark v. Bullock
65 Mo. 535 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)
Johnson v. Hodges
65 Mo. 589 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)
McGrew v. Foster
66 Mo. 30 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Mo. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulkerson-v-houts-mo-1874.