Stevens v. Stevens
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. Court did not err in granting appellant an extension of time in which to file her bill of exceptions, and the bill was properly allowed. Saulsbury v. Alexander, 1 Mo. App. 209; Miller v. Railroad, 5 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James A. Seddon, Judge. Court did not err in granting appellant an extension of time in which to file her bill of exceptions, and the bill was properly allowed. Saulsbury v. Alexander, 1 Mo. App. 209; Miller v. Railroad, 5 Mo. App. 471. Under the statute the court has the power to grant leave to file bill of exceptions after the trial term, but this order must be made during the term, and, unless the bill is filed within the time specified in such order, it becomes a nullity. The court has no authority to grant a second extension of time.…
1Opinion of the CourtRombaueb, P. J.
The respondent moves to dismiss this appeal, because it appears by the record that the bill of exceptions, filed by the appellant, was not filed during the term at which the motion for new trial was overruled, nor within the time specified by the court in its order extending the time in which to file said bill of exceptions.
It appears by the record, that final judgment overruling plaintiff’s motion for-new trial was rendered herein by the trial court at the October term, 1888, and *52that on the last day of said term the plaintiff took an appeal and the court by an order, duly entered of record,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Taylor v. NewmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- West v. FowlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- McCarty v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Clark v. BullockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Saulsbury v. AlexanderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. JacobsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890