Case ID: mo-app_41/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ellison, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Scott, Defendant in Error, v. John Howard, Plaintiff in Error.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    May 19, 1890
    Appellate Practice: abstract. Where a cause was disposed of on demurrer to the petition in the trial court and the abstract fails to set out the petition, the appellate court will dismiss the writ of error.
    
      Appeal -from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.
    Writ dismissed.
    
      A. P. Barton and L. H. Waters, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. C. Paxton, for defendant in error.
   Ellison, J.

This cause was disposed of on demurrer to the petition in the court below. The demurrer being overruled defendant appealed to this court. The petition is for an injunction, and the demurrer is that it does not state facts to constitute a cause of action. That “ on the facts stated in said petition plaintiff is entitled to no relief.” The petition is not set out in the abstract as required by our rules and we, therefore, have no means of knowing what allegations the petition may contain. We have so frequently ruled on the necessity of abstracts thht we need not refer to the particular authorities. We are not alone in these decisions. The supreme court makes strict enforcement of the same rule. Craig v. Scudder, 98 Mo. 664; Long v. Long, 96 Mo. 180; Manufacturer's Sav. Bank v. Iron Co., 97 Mo. 38; Flannery v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 192. We will, therefore, dismiss the writ of error.

All concur.