Case ID: mo-app_101/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "REYBU.RN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTHA A. SMITH, Respondent, v. SAFETY FUND INSURANCE SOCIETY, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    April 28, 1903.
    Practice, Appellate: MOTION FOE, NEW TEIAL OVERRULED, NO EXCEPTIONS SAVED: JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. The verdict and judgment having been for plaintiff, and defendant’s motions for new trial and judgment in arrest having been overruled and no exceptions saved thereto by bill of exceptions, they must stand for the reason that there is nothing before the court for review.
    Appeal from Pike Circnit Court. — Ho». David II. Eby, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      George W. Emerson and II. D. Agnew for appellant.
    
      Dempsey & McGinnis for respondent.
   REYBU.RN, J.

Plaintiff, widow of Oliver ‘P. Smith., formerly a resident of Pike county, Missouri, as beneficiary therein, brought this action upon an insurance certificate issued on the first of April, 1901, upon the life of her deceased husband, by defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. A trial before the judge and a jury in the circuit court of Pike county terminated in a verdict for the plaintiff, and defendant has appealed.

The bill of exceptions reveals that defendant filed motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment in due 'time which were properly continued by the court to the ensuing term and then overruled, but the bill of exceptions does not disclose that defendant preserved any exceptions to the action of the circuit court in overruling such motions, and under the rule so well established and so frequently announced, the defendant, by its failure to except to such rulings of the court and to save its exceptions thereto, must be deemed to have waived any possible objections thereto; no examination can be had of alleged trial errors and there is nothing before this court for review except' the record proper. State v. Weinegard, 168 Mo. 490; Casler v. Chase, 160 Mo. 418; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526; Abbott v. Gillum, 146 Mo. 176; Taylor v. Switzler, 110 Mo. 410; Bank Note & Lith. Co. v. Fennimore Ass’n., 84 Mo. App. 228.

We find no error manifest on the face of the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.