Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

136 Mo. App. 273

Whittington v. Woods

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 1909

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1909-03-01

— Eon. G. A. Denton, Judge. (1) Appellant’s abstract of the record fails to show the filing of a motion for a new trial, a motion in arrest of judgment, an affidavit for appeal, or a bill of exceptions. It is true these facts are all shown by the bill of exceptions, but this is not sufficient, they must all be shown by the abstract of the record. Harris v. Kobusch, 127 Mo. App. 441; Bank v. Magee, 125 Mo. App. 439; Perry & Gordon v. Coffee & Spice Co., 98 Mo.

Relies on Harding v. Bedoll · Redd v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Harris v. Kobusch

Affirmed · Decided 1909-03-01

JOHNSON, J.

¶1Tbe 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.]

¶2Accordingly tbe judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/136/moapp/273 · .json · Public domain