McLaughlin v. Fischer

Supreme Court of Missouri

McLaughlin v. Fischer

87 S.W. 913, 188 Mo. 546, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 45

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedMay 24, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 S.W. 913 (McLaughlin v. Fischer) 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

McLaughlin v. Fischer, 87 S.W. 913, 188 Mo. 546, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 45 (Mo. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BRACE., P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the St. Louis City Circuit Court, quashing an execution and setting aside a sheriff’s sale of real estate under a judgment in favor of the city of St. Louis in an action on a ■ special taxbill against the respondent. The appellant claiming under the purchaser at such sale, appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and [547]*547thence the case was transferred to this court. The appellant filed a transcript in the court of appeals, which has been transmitted to this court, but has entirely failed to file or serve an abstract thereof, as required by the statute, Revised Statutes 1899, section 813, and Rules 12 and 13 of this court. Besides, it appears from the transcript that the bill by which it was sought to preserve exceptions to the action of the court on the motion was not filed within the time allowed by the court, so that there is nothing for us to review even if there was an abstract. In this state of the record nothing remains to be done except to dismiss the appeal, and it is accordingly so ordered.

All concur.

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

BRACE., P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the St. Louis City Circuit Court, quashing an execution and setting aside a sheriff’s sale of real estate under a judgment in favor of the city of St. Louis in an action on a ■ special taxbill against the respondent. The appellant claiming under the purchaser at such sale, appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and [547]*547thence the case was transferred to this court. The appellant filed a transcript in the court of appeals, which has been transmitted to this court, but has entirely failed to file or serve an abstract thereof, as required by the statute, Revised Statutes 1899, section 813, and Rules 12 and 13 of this court. Besides, it appears from the transcript that the bill by which it was sought to preserve exceptions to the action of the court on the motion was not filed within the time allowed by the court, so that there is nothing for us to review even if there was an abstract. In this state of the record nothing remains to be done except to dismiss the appeal, and it is accordingly so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.W. 913, 188 Mo. 546, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-fischer-mo-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack