Shemwell v. McKinney

114 S.W. 1083, 214 Mo. 692, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 261
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedNovember 25, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 114 S.W. 1083 (Shemwell v. McKinney) 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
Shemwell v. McKinney, 114 S.W. 1083, 214 Mo. 692, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 261 (Mo. 1908).

Opinion

WOODSON, J.

This suit was. brought in the circuit court of Ripley county, and had for its object the quieting the title to certain real estate described in the petition, which was in the usual and approved form.

The answer was quite lengthy and set up various defenses, all of which were demurred to by the plaintiff, excepting the plea of the ten and thirty years’ statutes of limitation. The demurrer was sustained, and the respondent declined to plead further, and went to trial upon the question of limitation.

A trial was. had, and after respondent had introduced all his evidence, he took a nonsuit as to a portion of the land sued for, and recovered judgment for a part of the balance sued for, while the judgment for the remainder was for the appellant. Appellant has appealed from the judgment to this court.

The abstract of the record proper does not show an affidavit for an appeal in this cause, nor does it state the substance of any such an affidavit.

That omission prevents this court from acquiring jurisdiction of the cause. [State ex rel. v. Broaddus, [694]*694210 Mo. 1; Insurance Co. v. Hurst, 129 Mo. App. 627; Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 98 Mo. App. l. c. 408; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135.]

Nor does the abstract of the record proper show that the bill of exceptions was filed in time, or an order of record granting leave to file it in vacation.

This failure would prevent us from considering anything but the record proper, even though we had jurisdiction to hear the cause; but as. we have no jurisdiction thereof, as before stated, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur, except Valliant, P. J., absent.

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

Related

State v. Birron
147 S.W. 1133 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Campbell v. Boyers
145 S.W. 807 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State ex rel. Caulfield v. Broaddus
137 S.W. 271 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
Southern Missouri & Arkansas Railroad v. Wyatt
122 S.W. 688 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Flanagan Milling Co. v. City of St. Louis
121 S.W. 112 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Mathis v. Baxter
136 Mo. App. 16 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 S.W. 1083, 214 Mo. 692, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shemwell-v-mckinney-mo-1908.