Lafollette v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Lafollette v. Thompson

83 Mo. 199

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedOctober 15, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 83 Mo. 199 (Lafollette v. Thompson) 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

Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199 (Mo. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, C.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $195, from which defendant has appealed. We are precluded from consider[200]*200ing the questions raised at the trial, for the reason that the record fails to contain any bill of exceptions.

•The record discloses an order and consent of parties that a bill of exceptions may be filed twenty days after adjournment of the term. There is nothing of record, or on what purports to be a bill of exceptions, to indicate that it was ever filed at all. There must be an entry of record to make a bill of exceptions a part of the record. This is indispensable in term time. When leave is granted, with consent of parties, to file a bill in vacation, there must be some certificate on the bill itself, signed by the clerk, indicating the fact and date of filing, or some entry made by the clerk in the records of the court to that effect. Both of these requisites are wanting in the present case. The memorandum of attorneys written at the foot of the bill to the effect that the parties “have agreed upon the foregoing bill-of exceptions,” does not help out the matter. That is addressed to the judge to inform him that he may sign the bill as settled and agreed upon between the parties. Besides, as there is nothing to connect the bill with the record, the memorandum, equally with the supposed bill, is outside of it.

As the verdict and judgment are supported by the petition, it only remains for us to affirm the action of the court below, which is accordingly done.

All concur, except Hough, C. J., absent.

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

Martin, C.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $195, from which defendant has appealed. We are precluded from consider[200]*200ing the questions raised at the trial, for the reason that the record fails to contain any bill of exceptions.

•The record discloses an order and consent of parties that a bill of exceptions may be filed twenty days after adjournment of the term. There is nothing of record, or on what purports to be a bill of exceptions, to indicate that it was ever filed at all. There must be an entry of record to make a bill of exceptions a part of the record. This is indispensable in term time. When leave is granted, with consent of parties, to file a bill in vacation, there must be some certificate on the bill itself, signed by the clerk, indicating the fact and date of filing, or some entry made by the clerk in the records of the court to that effect. Both of these requisites are wanting in the present case. The memorandum of attorneys written at the foot of the bill to the effect that the parties “have agreed upon the foregoing bill-of exceptions,” does not help out the matter. That is addressed to the judge to inform him that he may sign the bill as settled and agreed upon between the parties. Besides, as there is nothing to connect the bill with the record, the memorandum, equally with the supposed bill, is outside of it.

As the verdict and judgment are supported by the petition, it only remains for us to affirm the action of the court below, which is accordingly done.

All concur, except Hough, C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Mo. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafollette-v-thompson-mo-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack