Sims v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.

28 Mo. App. 101, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 100
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 22, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Mo. App. 101 (Sims v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.) 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
Sims v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co., 28 Mo. App. 101, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 1887).

Opinion

Lewis, P. L,

delivered the opinion of the court.

An appeal was allowed by the circuit court, in this cause, on March 29, 1887, to the defendant.' No transcript was filed by the appellant with the clerk of this court within the time required by law. The respondent here produces in court a certificate in due form from the clerk of the circuit court of Ralls county, showing the names of the parties, the date and the amount of the judgment, the granting of the appeal, with the date thereof, and other particulars as required by law, and asks that the judgment be affirmed. Sundry áffidavits are filed by the appellant, which may be summed up as follows: The attorney who tried the cause resigned his attorneyship about the first day of June, 1887, and failed, through inadvertence, to notify his successor of the condition of the cause, until some time in August. He then promised his successor that he would look after the case,- but a press of business prevented his doing so. The transcript was made out in June, and was retained in the office of the clerk for examination by the attorneys. On October 1, the transcript was still awaiting the certificate and index, and was finished and delivered to the appellant’s attorney on October 3, 1887. That the general manager of the company was misinformed by attorneys about the condition of the transcript, and that the changes and misunderstanding in the matter were not done to cause delay in the hearing of the cause by the court of appeals.

The facts presented show no diligence whatever in the prosecution of the appeal, and no good cause why the judgment should not be affirmed, as prayed for.

All the judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Columbus Coal Co. v. Mitchell
128 S.W. 1019 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Mo. App. 101, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-st-louis-hannibal-railway-co-moctapp-1887.