State ex rel. Field v. Ellison
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The Supreme Court has a superintending control of the Court of Appeals, and has the final say as to the sufficiency of a printed abstract of record filed in a case in the Court of Appeals, when there is a controversy thereon; and' this authority is properly exercised hy a mandamus proceedings.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The Supreme Court has a superintending control of the Court of Appeals, and has the final say as to the sufficiency of a printed abstract of record filed in a case in the Court of Appeals, when there is a controversy thereon; and' this authority is properly exercised hy a mandamus proceedings. State ex rel. v. Smith, 172 Mo. 446; State ex rel. v. Smith, 172 Mo. 618; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 239 Mo. 368. (2) It is no longer necessary that printed abstracts of the record filed in appellate court should contain a copy, or even any recital, of the record entry in the circuit court…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
This case, in its facts, turns upon a narrow margin. The original action was one to enforce a special tax bill, by the. Parker-Washington Company against the relator herein, Annie Camp Field. The circuit court of Jackson County decided against Mrs. Field, and she appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals. In this case she filed an abstract of record, but the court, by a per curiam opinion, held that all of her complaints were lodged against matters of exceptions in the bill of exceptions, and that her abstract of record failed to show that she filed a bill *50of exceptions. The Court of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Modern Woodmen of America v. BroaddusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. May Department Stores Co. v. HaidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- State Ex Rel. Wallace State Bank v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Miller v. Kansas City Light & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926