Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

139 Mo. App. 522

Weber Implement Co. v. Hill

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 6, 1909

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1909-12-06

— Hon. A. H. Waller, Judge. (1) The court erred in not striking out defendant’s answer and counterclaim and in admitting evidence in support of the same. Both in the justice and circuit courts, defendant set up a counterclaim for $300, an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the justice and it should have been stricken out. R. S. 1899, sec. 3936; Nenno v. Railroad, 105 Mo. App. 552; Brownfield v. Thompson, 96 Mo. App. 340.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1911

1 state decisions

Relies on Harding v. Bedoll · Thompson v. Ruddick · Redd v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1909-12-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ELLISON, J. —

¶1This action was begun before a justice of the peace on a promissory note. On appeal to the circuit court judgment was rendered for the defendant and plaintiff appealed.

¶2The record presented does not show that any motion for new trial was filed. Nor does it show the filing of a bill of exceptions. These things appear in what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but the place for them is in the record proper.

¶3After defendant had prepared his briefs and made the point, plaintiff then asked leave of court to file a supplemental abstract and without obtaining such leave did file such supplement. This cannot be allowed over the objection of the other party. [Harding v. Bedoll, *525202 Mo. 625; Everett v. Butler, 192, Mo. 564; Redd v. Railroad, 122 Mo. App. 93; Cross v. Henderson, 129 Mo. App. 537.]

¶4There being no matter of exception before ns we are left to the record proper and finding no error therein the judgment will be affirmed. [Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561; Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643; Stark Bros. v. Martin, 126 Mo. App. 575.]

All concur.
/139/moapp/522 · .json · Public domain