Dorman v. Coon

Decided December 23, 1893

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1893-12-23

— Hon. W. I. Wallace, J ’ 3 udge. It was agreed between counsel for plaintiffs and defendant that additional time should be given plaintiffs to filo bill of exceptions and that the record entry so showing would be sufficient, which is shown by the foregoing supplemental abstract; having appeared and agreed to the filing of the bill of exceptions the defendant cannot complain now.

Relies on State v. Apperson · State v. Scott · State v. Britt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1893-12-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1913

11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sherwood. J.

¶1Ejectment for lands in Hickory county and judgment for defendant.

¶2The record shows that leave was granted plaintiffs to file their bill of exceptions on the fourth judicial day of the next term of the court; but the bill was not filed until the twentieth day of May, which was the eighth judicial day of the next or May term of the court. This fact renders the bill worthless as a bill of exceptions. And the fact that the record shows that the bill was filed in open court by ‘'consent of parties,” gives the bill no judicial standing. After the time expires ■ for filing a bill, there does not exist any power in the court or out of it, or in the parties, or their counsel, further to extend the time. State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559.

¶3As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.