State ex rel. Rogers v. Gage Bros. & Co.

52 Mo. App. 464
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 16, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 52 Mo. App. 464 (State ex rel. Rogers v. Gage Bros. & 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
State ex rel. Rogers v. Gage Bros. & Co., 52 Mo. App. 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 1893).

Opinions

ON MOTION TO AHSTBM.

Ellison, J.

We are asked to affirm the judgment in this cause. The appeal was taken on November 19, 1891, and time for filing bill of exceptions was extended to February 5, 1892.

Before this time expired another extension to February 15 was granted. The bill was filed within this time, and the cause was, therefore, returnable to the March term of this court. But the clerk of the circuit court, did not get the transcript made out in time to reach this court for the March term; and he did not, of course, notify appellants or appellants’ counsel of record of the completion of the transcript. By an amendment to section 2252, Revised Statutes, 1889, “the failure of the clerk to notify appellant or his attorney of record of the completion of the transcript in time to enable him to have same filed in the appel[469]*469late court iu the time required by law,” shall be considered good cause for refusing to affirm the judgment of the lower court. Laws, 1891, p. 69.

Our interpretation of this section, as thus amended, is that, after an appellant directs the clerk to make out a perfect transcript he can await a notice from the clerk that the transcript is completed, and until such notice he is not in default.

II. At the time of the second extension the court added to the order the following words: “But this extension A nowise to extend time for filing transcript in the Kansas City Court of Appeals.” We are unable to perceive how this order can alter the duty of the clerk, or affect the party entitled to a performance of such duty, and to rely upon its performance. The motion to affirm is overruled.

All concur.

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

Related

Tymon Reed v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, 2022
Songer v. Brittain
272 S.W.2d 16 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1954)
Bank of Malden v. Stokes
280 S.W. 1055 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1926)
C. H. Albers Commission Co. v. Milliken
167 S.W. 1056 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Finer v. Nichols
157 S.W. 1023 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
State ex rel. First National Bank v. Seavey & Flarsheim
119 S.W. 17 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
State ex rel. Clark v. Parsons
84 S.W. 1019 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Meisch v. Sippy
77 S.W. 141 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Orscheln v. Scott
79 Mo. App. 534 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
State ex rel. Copening v. Ryley, Wilson & Co.
76 Mo. App. 412 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
State v. East Joplin Lumber Co.
70 Mo. App. 663 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Mo. App. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-rogers-v-gage-bros-co-moctapp-1893.