Recar v. Recar

Missouri Court of Appeals

Recar v. Recar

154 S.W. 423, 171 Mo. App. 632, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 649

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 S.W. 423 (Recar v. Recar) 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

Recar v. Recar, 154 S.W. 423, 171 Mo. App. 632, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit in equity in which it is sought to set aside a judgment and decree of di[633]*633vorce procured several years before. It is alleged tbe decree of divorce sought to be set aside was procured through fraud practiced upon the court in and about its procurement. Upon hearing the evidence, the court found the issue for defendant and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s bill. From this judgment plain-' tiff prosecutes the appeal here and seeks a review of the evidence.

While all of the evidence and the motion for a new trial are preserved in the bill of exceptions, no exception whatever, touching the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, appears in the abstract. In this condition of the record, we are precluded from'reviewing the evidence and the finding and judgment thereon, for the motion for a new trial avails nothing unless an exception be preserved to the action of the court in overruling it. [See Wilbrandt v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 135 Mo. App. 220, 115 S. W. 497.] The judgment should therefore be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur.

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

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit in equity in which it is sought to set aside a judgment and decree of di[633]*633vorce procured several years before. It is alleged tbe decree of divorce sought to be set aside was procured through fraud practiced upon the court in and about its procurement. Upon hearing the evidence, the court found the issue for defendant and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s bill. From this judgment plain-' tiff prosecutes the appeal here and seeks a review of the evidence.

While all of the evidence and the motion for a new trial are preserved in the bill of exceptions, no exception whatever, touching the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, appears in the abstract. In this condition of the record, we are precluded from'reviewing the evidence and the finding and judgment thereon, for the motion for a new trial avails nothing unless an exception be preserved to the action of the court in overruling it. [See Wilbrandt v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 135 Mo. App. 220, 115 S. W. 497.] The judgment should therefore be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.W. 423, 171 Mo. App. 632, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/recar-v-recar-moctapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack