Grant Quarry Co. v. Lyons Construction Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Grant Quarry Co. v. Lyons Construction Co.

72 Mo. App. 478, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 201

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 Mo. App. 478 (Grant Quarry Co. v. Lyons Construction Co.) 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

Grant Quarry Co. v. Lyons Construction Co., 72 Mo. App. 478, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 201 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Bond, J.

The appellant in this case, in lieu of a transcript, filed a certificate of judgment accompanied by an abstract, which fails to show that a bill of exceptions was taken and properly filed in the court below. The matters complained of in this court relate solely to errors alleged to have occurred in the course of the trial. This can not be brought to our attention except by a bill of exceptions, under repeated decisions of this court. Mason v. Pennington, 53 Mo. App. 118; Hohstadt v. Daggs, 49 Mo. App. 157. When an appeal is prosecuted by an abstract it should affirmatively appear that a bill of exceptions was taken and properly filed in order to present anything for review beyond the record proper. This is not shown in the present case, and an examination of the record proper shows [479]*479that the judgment was authorized by the pleadings; it will therefore be affirmed. If, however, the abstract on file in this court had contained proper recitals as to the filing of a bill of exceptions, the same result would probably have been reached, since an examination of the facts and admissions contained in the alleged abstract seems to warrant the instruction given by the court. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Bond, J.

The appellant in this case, in lieu of a transcript, filed a certificate of judgment accompanied by an abstract, which fails to show that a bill of exceptions was taken and properly filed in the court below. The matters complained of in this court relate solely to errors alleged to have occurred in the course of the trial. This can not be brought to our attention except by a bill of exceptions, under repeated decisions of this court. Mason v. Pennington, 53 Mo. App. 118; Hohstadt v. Daggs, 49 Mo. App. 157. When an appeal is prosecuted by an abstract it should affirmatively appear that a bill of exceptions was taken and properly filed in order to present anything for review beyond the record proper. This is not shown in the present case, and an examination of the record proper shows [479]*479that the judgment was authorized by the pleadings; it will therefore be affirmed. If, however, the abstract on file in this court had contained proper recitals as to the filing of a bill of exceptions, the same result would probably have been reached, since an examination of the facts and admissions contained in the alleged abstract seems to warrant the instruction given by the court. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Mo. App. 478, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-quarry-co-v-lyons-construction-co-moctapp-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack