Hutton & Little v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hutton & Little v. Clark

129 S.W. 1050, 145 Mo. App. 188, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 440

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 S.W. 1050 (Hutton & Little v. Clark) 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

Hutton & Little v. Clark, 129 S.W. 1050, 145 Mo. App. 188, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 440 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

This action was instituted to recover commission for the sale of real estate. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.

The abstract of the record proper does not show that a motion for new trial was filed, or that judgment was rendered, or that an appeal was granted, or that a bill of exceptions was filed. The bill of exceptions shows these things, but it has been ruled time and again, by the Supreme and Appellate Courts, that record entries which are not matters of exception must appear in the record proper. [Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135; Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 516; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643.] We therefore cannot consider matters of exception and there being no error in 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

ELLISON, J.

This action was instituted to recover commission for the sale of real estate. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.

The abstract of the record proper does not show that a motion for new trial was filed, or that judgment was rendered, or that an appeal was granted, or that a bill of exceptions was filed. The bill of exceptions shows these things, but it has been ruled time and again, by the Supreme and Appellate Courts, that record entries which are not matters of exception must appear in the record proper. [Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135; Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 516; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643.] We therefore cannot consider matters of exception and there being no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W. 1050, 145 Mo. App. 188, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutton-little-v-clark-moctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack