Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins

Missouri Court of Appeals

Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins

116 S.W. 458, 136 Mo. App. 209, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 27

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 S.W. 458 (Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins) 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

Phoenix Stone & Lime Co. v. Huggins, 116 S.W. 458, 136 Mo. App. 209, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

This action is on an account for cut stone furnished defendant at his instance and request. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff.

[210]*210The abstract of the record presented here does not show by the record proper that any motion for new trial was filed, or that there was a bill of exceptions filed. The bill of exceptions shows those things, but it has been ruled a great number of times that they must be shown by the record proper.

Defendant presented at the hearing a paper denominated a supplemental abstract. This was done without consent and cannot be noticed. [Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561, 111 S. W. 1131; Olay v. Pub. Co., 200 Mo. 665; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442; Stark v. Martin, 126 Mo. App. 575; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 630; Pennowfsky y. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643, 113 S. W. 1138; Gray v. Railway (decided this term).]

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