Shrader v. Randolph County

Supreme Court of Missouri

Shrader v. Randolph County

163 S.W.2d 920, 349 Mo. 1036, 1942 Mo. LEXIS 425

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJuly 28, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 163 S.W.2d 920 (Shrader v. Randolph County) 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

Shrader v. Randolph County, 163 S.W.2d 920, 349 Mo. 1036, 1942 Mo. LEXIS 425 (Mo. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

LEEDY, J.

Randolph County appeals from a judgment against it for the payment of the costs and expenses of an inquest held by respondent, Shrader, the then.Coroner, upon the body of one Pierce *1037 who died.in said county on September 5, 1939. Appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, that court, being without jurisdiction because a county is a party, properly transferred the cause to this court.

The case was submitted without argument on appellant’s abstract of the record and brief, the respondent haying filed no brief. Our rule 13 provides that the abstract “shall set forth so much of the record as is necessary to a complete .understanding of all questions presented for decision. . . . Where there is no .controversy as to the pleadings ... it shall be sufficient to set out the substance of such pleadings.” The bill of exceptions, after showing the appearances of counsel, recites, “And thereupon the pleadings were read to the, court . . . statements were made, etc. ’ ’, and the trial proceeded. But the abstract fails to set out said pleadings, or any of them, either in substance or in haec verba. Indeed, it cannot be ascertained from said abstract whether the cause reached the circuit court on appeal from the county court, or as an independent action which originated in said circuit court.

Anent this subject it was said in State ex rel. Dilliner v. Cummins, 338 Mo. 609, 92 S. W. (2d) 605, “It is settled law that an abstract of record .should cofitain the pleadings in the cause. [Werminghaus v. Eberle (Mo.), 81 S. W. (2d) 607.] . . . .The purpose of our rule requiring the abstract of record to contain the pleadings is for. the convenience of the court in determining what the issues are. ’ ’

As we are unable to determine whether the points briefed are within the.issues, or to know what issues were tendered by the pleadings and decided by the court below, we are confronted with the necessity of dismissing, the appeal. It is so ordered.

All.concur.

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

LEEDY, J.

Randolph County appeals from a judgment against it for the payment of the costs and expenses of an inquest held by respondent, Shrader, the then.Coroner, upon the body of one Pierce *1037 who died.in said county on September 5, 1939. Appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, that court, being without jurisdiction because a county is a party, properly transferred the cause to this court.

The case was submitted without argument on appellant’s abstract of the record and brief, the respondent haying filed no brief. Our rule 13 provides that the abstract “shall set forth so much of the record as is necessary to a complete .understanding of all questions presented for decision. . . . Where there is no .controversy as to the pleadings ... it shall be sufficient to set out the substance of such pleadings.” The bill of exceptions, after showing the appearances of counsel, recites, “And thereupon the pleadings were read to the, court . . . statements were made, etc. ’ ’, and the trial proceeded. But the abstract fails to set out said pleadings, or any of them, either in substance or in haec verba. Indeed, it cannot be ascertained from said abstract whether the cause reached the circuit court on appeal from the county court, or as an independent action which originated in said circuit court.

Anent this subject it was said in State ex rel. Dilliner v. Cummins, 338 Mo. 609, 92 S. W. (2d) 605, “It is settled law that an abstract of record .should cofitain the pleadings in the cause. [Werminghaus v. Eberle (Mo.), 81 S. W. (2d) 607.] . . . .The purpose of our rule requiring the abstract of record to contain the pleadings is for. the convenience of the court in determining what the issues are. ’ ’

As we are unable to determine whether the points briefed are within the.issues, or to know what issues were tendered by the pleadings and decided by the court below, we are confronted with the necessity of dismissing, the appeal. It is so ordered.

All.concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.W.2d 920, 349 Mo. 1036, 1942 Mo. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shrader-v-randolph-county-mo-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack