Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Mo. 199

Lafollette v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1884-10-15

<p>Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. N. M. Givan, Judge.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1884-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1926

11 state decisions

4018841890190019101920decided

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 →

Martin, C.

¶1The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $195, from which defendant has appealed. We are precluded from consider*200ing the questions raised at the trial, for the reason that the record fails to contain any bill of exceptions.

¶2•The record discloses an order and consent of parties that a bill of exceptions may be filed twenty days after adjournment of the term. There is nothing of record, or on what purports to be a bill of exceptions, to indicate that it was ever filed at all. There must be an entry of record to make a bill of exceptions a part of the record. This is indispensable in term time. When leave is granted, with consent of parties, to file a bill in vacation, there must be some certificate on the bill itself, signed by the clerk, indicating the fact and date of filing, or some entry made by the clerk in the records of the court to that effect. Both of these requisites are wanting in the present case. The memorandum of attorneys written at the foot of the bill to the effect that the parties “have agreed upon the foregoing bill-of exceptions,” does not help out the matter. That is addressed to the judge to inform him that he may sign the bill as settled and agreed upon between the parties. Besides, as there is nothing to connect the bill with the record, the memorandum, equally with the supposed bill, is outside of it.

¶3As the verdict and judgment are supported by the petition, it only remains for us to affirm the action of the court below, which is accordingly done.

All concur, except Hough, C. J., absent.
/83/mo/199 · .json · Public domain