Murrell v. McGuigan

Decided February 21, 1899

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1899-02-21

Transferred from St. Louis Gourt of Appeals. (1) If the appellant wishes to have his supposed grievances passed upon and adjudicated by this court, it is his duty to have all the necessary papers and facts before the court as provided by the statutes, the rules of court and the law, and for neglect or failure to do so, he must suffer the penalty of having the judgment against him affirmed or his appeal dismissed.

Relies on Brand v. Cannon · Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co. · Craig v. Scudder

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1899-02-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1915

5 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 →

BUEGESS, J.

¶1This is an election contest for a seat in the house of delegates, held in the nineteenth ward of the-city of St. Louis, on the second day of April, 1895.

¶2Plaintiff had judgment in the trial court, whereupon defendant appealed to the St. Louis Court of .Appeals, by which the cause was certified to this court because of its. want of jurisdiction, a constitutional question being inyolyed.

¶3The appellant has failed to comply with rules 11, 12 and 13 of this court, requiring the filing of a printed abstract of the pleadings and record, with “a complete index at the end,” and we therefore dismiss the appeal. [Cunningham v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 208; Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co., 111 Mo. 279; Brand v. Cannon, 118 Mo. 595; Snyder v. Free, 102 Mo. 325; Long v. Long, 96 Mo. 180;, Craig v. Scudder, 98 Mo. 664.]

GaNtt, P. J., and Shebwood, J., concur.