Barham v. Shelton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The abstract of the record was not served by appellant within the time provided by law and the rules of this court. E. S. 1899, sec. 813; Eule 11. (2) The abstract filed by the appellant is not such as is contemplated and required by the statutes and the .rule of court referred to above.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The abstract of the record was not served by appellant within the time provided by law and the rules of this court. E. S. 1899, sec. 813; Eule 11. (2) The abstract filed by the appellant is not such as is contemplated and required by the statutes and the .rule of court referred to above. Hill v. Butler County, 195 Mo. 511; Yandeventer v. Gross, 190 Mo. 239; Everett v. Butler, 192 Mo. 564. (3) The abstract is fatally defective because it fails to show proper record entries of the filing of the motion for a new trial, granting of'…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
This cause was on our docket for hearing April 21st, but was not reached until April 23rd. March 31st, the respondent lodged in this court his motion to affirm the judgment for divers reasons therein assigned, as follows: (1) that the abstract of record and brief of appellant had, not been served and filed thirty days before the date set for hearing, and (2) that there are numerous failures to comply with the statute and our rules in the preparation of the abstract of record, which failures are pointed out in the motion. On April 23rd, the day of hearing, appellant tendered for filing an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harding v. BedollSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hopper v. FulbrightMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Hord v. ShepherdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911