State ex rel. Flentge v. Sanford
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Bollinger Circuit Court. — Ho». Jas. D. Fox, Judge. It does not appear that appellants excepted to the overruling of their motion for a new trial, nor does it appear that any hill of exceptions was filed; hence, nothing but the record proper can be reviewed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bollinger Circuit Court. — Ho». Jas. D. Fox, Judge. It does not appear that appellants excepted to the overruling of their motion for a new trial, nor does it appear that any hill of exceptions was filed; hence, nothing but the record proper can be reviewed. Meier v. Hinkson, 146 Mo. 458. Furthermore, the mere fact that appellants’ abstract does not affirmatively show that their motion for new trial was filed within four days after the trial, precludes review of anything hut the record proper, even if exceptions had been properly saved. St. Louis v. Boyce, 130 Mo. 572.
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
This suit was begun in the circuit court of Cape Girardeau county for back taxes against ten tracts of land lying in said county for the years 1895, 1896 and 1897. On application of the defendants a change of venue was awarded to the circuit court of Bollinger county.
On the trial defendants admitted that Martha J. Sanford owned tracts numbered two, three, four and five, but disclaimed ownership of tracts numbered one, six and ten. Defendants ’ assessment lists in which the ten tracts were described exactly as in the collector’s certified taxbill were in evidence. The statutory affidavit was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State ex rel. Flentge v. BurroughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Meier v. HinksonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Heather v. City of PalmyraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- State v. BlanchardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Investment Security Co. v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Montague v. W. H. Kolkmeyer & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909