Case ID: mo-app_136/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      JOHNSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM T. WHITTINGTON, Respondent, v. PETER G. WOODS, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    March 1, 1909.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract: Filing Motions: Bill of Exceptions. The abstract of the record proper must show that the motions for new trial and in arrest and the affidavit for appeal were filed, and also the order granting the appeal and leave to file bill of exceptions at a succeeding term, and a mere recitation thereof in the bill of exceptions is insufficient to authorize a review of the exceptions at the trial.
    Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court. — Eon. G. A. Denton, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      John F. Q-ibbs and A. B. Kmpmeyer, of counsel, filed brief on merits.
    
      E. E. Neville for respondent.
    (1) Appellant’s abstract of the record fails to show the filing of a motion for a new trial, a motion in arrest of judgment, an affidavit for appeal, or a bill of exceptions. It is true these facts are all shown by the bill of exceptions, but this is not sufficient, they must all be shown by the abstract of the record. Harris v. Kobusch, 127 Mo. App. 441; Bank v. Magee, 125 Mo. App. 439; Perry & Gordon v. Coffee & Spice Co., 98 Mo. App. 409; Jordan v. Eailway, 92 Mo. App. 81,
   JOHNSON, J.

Tbe abstract of tbe record fails to show tbe filing of tbe appellant’s motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, tbe filing of an affidavit for ap appeal and tbe order granting an appeal and tbe order granting appellant leave to file bill of exceptions at tbe succeeding.term of court. These matters appear in wbat purports to be a bill of exceptions, but it bas been beld repeatedly that this is insufficient. They must appear in tbe record proper. In sucb state of tbe record, we cannot review tbe exceptions on wbicb appellant relies and, finding no error in tbe record proper, must affirm the judgment. [Redd v. Railway, 122 Mo. App. 93; Harris v. Kobusch, 127 Mo. App. 441; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625.]

Accordingly tbe judgment is affirmed.

All concur.