Whittington v. Woods

116 S.W. 1065, 136 Mo. App. 273, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 42
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 1, 1909·Published

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Tbe abstract of tbe record fails to show tbe filing of tbe appellant’s motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, tbe filing of an affidavit for ap appeal and tbe order granting an appeal and tbe order granting appellant leave to file bill of exceptions at tbe succeeding.term of court. These matters appear in wbat purports to be a bill of exceptions, but it bas been beld repeatedly that this is insufficient. They must appear in tbe record proper. In sucb state of tbe record, we cannot review tbe exceptions on wbicb appellant relies and, finding no error in tbe record proper, must affirm the judgment. [Redd v. Railway, 122 Mo. App. 93; Harris v. Kobusch, 127 Mo. App. 441; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625.]

Accordingly tbe judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Whittington v. Woods, 116 S.W. 1065, 136 Mo. App. 273, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

116 S.W. 1065 (Whittington v. Woods) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Redd v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
98 S.W. 89 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Harding v. Bedoll
100 S.W. 638 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Harris v. Kobusch
105 S.W. 659 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)