Merryman v. Shanks

Missouri Court of Appeals

Merryman v. Shanks

78 Mo. App. 265, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 43

DecidedJanuary 24, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 78 Mo. App. 265 (Merryman v. Shanks) 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

Merryman v. Shanks, 78 Mo. App. 265, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

POND, J.

This suit was begun before a justice by attachment to recover an alleged balance of $143. On the trial there the plaintiffs had judgment on a plea in abatement filed by defendants, as well as on the merits. Defendants appealed to the circuit court, and there moved to dissolve the attachment and dismiss the suit for failure of appellants to file a statement of their cause of action in the justice’s court. The motion was sustained, to which ruling plaintiffs excepted at the time. They also filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, to which ruling plaintiffs did not except. Their failure in this respect rendered the bill of exceptions nugatory. Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 414. Hence there is nothing before us for review except the record proper. As this shows no error in the judgment óf the lower court, it will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

POND, J.

This suit was begun before a justice by attachment to recover an alleged balance of $143. On the trial there the plaintiffs had judgment on a plea in abatement filed by defendants, as well as on the merits. Defendants appealed to the circuit court, and there moved to dissolve the attachment and dismiss the suit for failure of appellants to file a statement of their cause of action in the justice’s court. The motion was sustained, to which ruling plaintiffs excepted at the time. They also filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, to which ruling plaintiffs did not except. Their failure in this respect rendered the bill of exceptions nugatory. Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 414. Hence there is nothing before us for review except the record proper. As this shows no error in the judgment óf the lower court, it will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Mo. App. 265, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merryman-v-shanks-moctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack