Hesse v. Queen Insurance

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hesse v. Queen Insurance

90 S.W. 1165, 115 Mo. App. 89, 1905 Mo. App. LEXIS 387

DecidedNovember 28, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.W. 1165 (Hesse v. Queen Insurance) 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

Hesse v. Queen Insurance, 90 S.W. 1165, 115 Mo. App. 89, 1905 Mo. App. LEXIS 387 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinions

GOODE, J.

— This is an action on a fire insurance policy to recover damages sustained by the burning of the insured property, a dwelling. We are of the opinion that the record is not in a condition for the appel[90]*90lant’s exceptions to be reviewed. The record proper, on which the judgment for respondent rests, exhibits no defect to invalidate the judgment. The case is here on a short transcript and the abstract furnished by the appellant does not show, other than by recitals in the bill of exceptions, the filing of either a motion for new trial or of the bill itself. But on turning to the transcript we see that the appellant was granted leave to file a bill of exceptions on or before February 8,1904. The recital in the bill shows it was filed February 18, 1904, or ten days too late. So if we could be governed by what the bill states, as we cannot be, we should have to hold it was filed out of time. There are other grave omissions from the record proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

GOODE, J.

— This is an action on a fire insurance policy to recover damages sustained by the burning of the insured property, a dwelling. We are of the opinion that the record is not in a condition for the appel[90]*90lant’s exceptions to be reviewed. The record proper, on which the judgment for respondent rests, exhibits no defect to invalidate the judgment. The case is here on a short transcript and the abstract furnished by the appellant does not show, other than by recitals in the bill of exceptions, the filing of either a motion for new trial or of the bill itself. But on turning to the transcript we see that the appellant was granted leave to file a bill of exceptions on or before February 8,1904. The recital in the bill shows it was filed February 18, 1904, or ten days too late. So if we could be governed by what the bill states, as we cannot be, we should have to hold it was filed out of time. There are other grave omissions from the record proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.W. 1165, 115 Mo. App. 89, 1905 Mo. App. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hesse-v-queen-insurance-moctapp-1905.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack