Cline v. Brooks
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.—Hon. E. T.Wrigiit, Judge. The transcript of the record and proceedings in the Common Pleas Court was not filed in the circuit clerk’s office till the 26th day of March. That court did not in any manner become possessed of the case until that day. Wag. Stat. 120 § 8. Before that, the act of March 17th had become a law (Sess. Acts 1873 pp. 145 to 148); it repealed the former act and authorized trial de novo in the Circuit Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.—Hon. E. T.Wrigiit, Judge. The transcript of the record and proceedings in the Common Pleas Court was not filed in the circuit clerk’s office till the 26th day of March. That court did not in any manner become possessed of the case until that day. Wag. Stat. 120 § 8. Before that, the act of March 17th had become a law (Sess. Acts 1873 pp. 145 to 148); it repealed the former act and authorized trial de novo in the Circuit Court. I. There being no motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment, filed in said Common Pleas Court; no exceptions saved or error…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
The plaintiff had a claim allowed against the estate of Cline, in the Cass Common Pleas, on the 21st day of February, 1873, and on the same day the administrator appealed to the Circuit Court, but the trans-script was not filed in the latter court until the 26th of March next thereafter. On the 7th day of July, 1873, the Circuit Court, on the ground that no bill of exceptions, &c., had been filed in the lower court, and no assignment of errors, &c., in that court, dismissed the appeal. After vainly endeavoring to reinstate the cause, the defendant comes here by writ of error.
*63 mentsubseiluent…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McCraw v. HubbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Schulenburg v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Oklahoma City v. T. M. Richardson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895