Whiting v. Big River Lead Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Whiting v. Big River Lead Co.

92 S.W. 883, 195 Mo. 509, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 264

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedMarch 30, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 92 S.W. 883 (Whiting v. Big River Lead Co.) 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

Whiting v. Big River Lead Co., 92 S.W. 883, 195 Mo. 509, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 264 (Mo. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BRACE, P. J.

— The appeal in this case is brought here on a complete transcript, but the appellant has failed to file an abstract thereof as required by statute (R. S. 1899, sec. 813), and rules 12 and 13 of this court. The only paper filed herein by the appellant is endorsed, “Statement, Brief and Argument of Appellant.” It does not purport to and does not contain an abstract of the record upon which the same ought to be based as required by the statute and rules aforesaid. It is a mistake to suppose that filing a complete transcript of the record in this court dispenses with the necessity of filing an abstract thereof. [McLaughlin v. Fischer, 188 Mo. 546; Whitehead v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 475; Clements v. Turner, 162 Mo. 466.] The mere opinion of counsel as to what the record is, expressed in the statement of appellant’s case, cannot be taken for an abstract. Counsel cannot thus evade the duty of making a correct abstract of the transcript, to the verity of which their professional honor is pledged, or devolve that duty upon the court. Hence, this appeal will be dismissed.

All concur.

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

BRACE, P. J.

— The appeal in this case is brought here on a complete transcript, but the appellant has failed to file an abstract thereof as required by statute (R. S. 1899, sec. 813), and rules 12 and 13 of this court. The only paper filed herein by the appellant is endorsed, “Statement, Brief and Argument of Appellant.” It does not purport to and does not contain an abstract of the record upon which the same ought to be based as required by the statute and rules aforesaid. It is a mistake to suppose that filing a complete transcript of the record in this court dispenses with the necessity of filing an abstract thereof. [McLaughlin v. Fischer, 188 Mo. 546; Whitehead v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 475; Clements v. Turner, 162 Mo. 466.] The mere opinion of counsel as to what the record is, expressed in the statement of appellant’s case, cannot be taken for an abstract. Counsel cannot thus evade the duty of making a correct abstract of the transcript, to the verity of which their professional honor is pledged, or devolve that duty upon the court. Hence, this appeal will be dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.W. 883, 195 Mo. 509, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiting-v-big-river-lead-co-mo-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack