Case ID: mo-app_80/html/0406-01.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

Bank of Monett, Appellant, v. R. C. Stone & Company, Defendants, Respondents; J. P. Westbray, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    May 8, 1899.
    Appellate Practice: motion fob. new trial: filing of. Where the record fails to show when the motion for new trial was filed, the . appellate court can not notice errors in the hill of exceptions.
    
      
      Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Pebkins, Judge.
    Aeeibmed.
    A. Y. Dabboch for appellant submitted brief on merits.
    A. W. Lyon for respondents.
    (1) No matters of exception should be reviewed on the part of'appellant Bank of Monett for the reason that its abstract of the record filed herein does not show affirmatively or otherwise the date it filed its motion for new trial or that the same was filed within four days after the rendition of judgment. Hohstadt, Assignee, v. Daggs, 49 Mo. App. 157; Clark v. Clark, 8 Mo. App. 601; Johnson v. Greenleaf, 73 Mo. 671. (2) Nor should any such matters be reviewed on behalf of appellant J. P. Westbay, he having failed to file any motion for new trial or in arrest. Baker v. Eailroad, 107 Mo. 230; Cornwell v. Wulff, 27 S. W. Eep. 659. There are no errors of record and none are even assigned, hence appellants are not in this court on the merits.
   ELLISON, J.

The plaintiff brought suit against defendants Stone and Prickett. Defendant Westbray was after-wards made a party defendant. Judgment in the trial court was unsatisfactory to the plaintiff and to defendant Westbray and they each took an appeal by the short method. The record does not show that Westbray ever filed a motion for new trial. And while it shows such motion was filed by the plaintiff bank, it does not show when it was filed, or that it was within four days. It shows that judgment was rendered on November 29, and that the motion for new trial was overruled on December 18, 1897. But at what time between these dates it was filed does not appear. We can not therefore notice any errors in the bill of exceptions. This has been so frequently decided by the supreme court and both courts of appeal that comment is unnecessary.

An examination of the record proper does not disclose any error and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.