Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Mo. 279

McCarty v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1882-04-15

<p>Bill of Exceptions. To authorize the filing of a bill of exceptions in vacation there must be both consent of parties and an order of court permitting it. The one without the other will not be sufficient.</p>

Relies on West v. Fowler · Peake v. Bell · Robart v. Long

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appirmed · Decided 1882-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1928

8 state decisions

6018821890190019101920decided

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 →

Norton, J.

¶1Notwithstanding the positive injunction of the statute that exceptions must.be filed during the term at which they are taken, and not after, it has been held by this court that a bill of exceptions may be filed after the expiration of the term, provided the parties consent thereto and the court so orders. Robart v. Long, 65 Mo. 223; Peake v. Bell, 65 Mo. 224; West v. Fowler, 59 Mo. 40. The bill of exceptions in this case was not filed , during the term, and although the consent of parties that it might be filed in vacation appears, there is no order of court based upon such consent authorizing it to be done, and under the authority of the cases above cited, the bill of exceptions must be disregarded, as this is insisted upon in the first point made by respondent. This being done, there is nothing left for us to consider but the record proper, and as we find no error in it, the judgment will be affirmed. .

All concur.

¶2Motion for rehearing overruled.

/75/mo/279 · .json · Public domain