Case ID: mo_228/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WOODSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH R. HUBBARD et al., Appellants, v. J. C. GATES.
    Division One,
    May 31, 1910.
    NO EXCEPTIONS: Motion for New Trial. Where the record nowhere shows that any exceptions were taken or saved to the court’s finding of facts or to the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and there is no error in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. C. A. Mosman, Judge.
    AEEIKMED.
    
      Geo. H. English for appellants.
    (1) As to the pojnt that the record does not disclose that appellant excepted) to the court’s action in overruling the motion for a new trial, we entertain the view that an announcement of the trial court and that exception is made to all adverse rulings of the court, is a sufficient answer to this point. But in addition, it will be borne in mind that the respondent is contend-' ing that this is an equity case. In equity cases the court reviews the whole testimony and renders such decree as the court below should have rendered. Exceptions perform no office in making up the record in equity cases. Surely respondent will not be heard to assert that this cause is in equity and at the same time to invoke a rule applicable only to law cases. Furthermore, the taking of the appeal in open court, on the very day and immediately upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, is a sufficient exception to the court’s ruling. Moody v. Railroad, 115 S. W. 400; Gray v. J ames, 60 S. E. 906.
    
      
      L. E. Waters and L. C. Slavens for respondent.
    It nowhere appears from anything filed in • this conrt that any exceptions were taken or saved to. the action of the court in making its findings or in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial. There is nothing, therefore, before this court for consideration, except the record proper. Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 577; State v. Harris, 216 Mo. 393.
   WOODSON, J.

The record in this case nowhere shows that any exceptions were taken or saved by appellant to the action of the trial court in making its findings of fact or in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Upon such a state of the record, we have frequently held that there was nothing before this court for consideration, except the record proper. [Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 577; State v. Harris, 216 Mo. 393.]

And finding no error upon the face of the record proper, the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

All concur.