Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

145 Mo. App. 188

Hutton & Little v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 9, 1910

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1910-07-09

<p>APPELLATE PRACTICE: What Record Must Show. The abstract of the record proper must show the filing of a motion for new trial and a hill of exceptions, as well as that an appeal was granted. The bill of exceptions showing these things will not suffice.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1912

1 state decisions

Relies on Harding v. Bedoll · Stark v. Zehnder · Pennowfsky v. Coerver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1910-07-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ELLISON, J.

¶1This action was instituted to recover commission for the sale of real estate. The judgment in the trial court was for the defendant.

¶2The abstract of the record proper does not show that a motion for new trial was filed, or that judgment was rendered, or that an appeal was granted, or that a bill of exceptions was filed. The bill of exceptions shows these things, but it has been ruled time and again, by the Supreme and Appellate Courts, that record entries which are not matters of exception must appear in the record proper. [Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135; Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 516; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. 442; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643.] We therefore cannot consider matters of exception and there being no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/145/moapp/188 · .json · Public domain