Brand v. Cannon
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. The motion to affirm for failure to prepare and file in this court a sufficient abstract is justified by the-following authorities: Long v. -Long, 96 Mo. 180;. Jayne v. Wine, 98 Mo. 404; Craig v. Scudder, 98 Mo. 664; Clarh v. Fairley, 100 Mo. 236; Snyder v. Free,. 102 Mo. 325; Thompson v. Allen, 107 Mo. 480; Cunningham v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 208; Garrett v. Coal Co.,. Ill Mo. 279.
1Opinion of the Court
Gtántt, P. J.
This is an appeal from the circuit court of Pettis county. Appellants have filed what purports to be an abstract of the record, under rules-11, 12 and 13, of this court. Respondents filed a. motion to affirm the judgment and suggestions in support thereof, on the first day of this term, and on account of the sickness of counsel for appellants, the time was extended to enable them to file suggestions in opposition.
The motion to affirm is based upon the insufficiency of the abstract under the rules. It is unnecessary to repeat those rules here, as they are to be found in each of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
3Cited by20 opinions
- Harding v. BedollSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. GlasnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Smith v. BaerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Gooden v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Halstead v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.