Case ID: mo-app_132/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GOODE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SPARKMAN, Respondent, v. FRISCO ORE MINING COMPANY, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    May 26, 1908.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract of Record. Where appellant’s abstract of the record fails to comply with the statute and rule 15 of the appellate court because it contains no digest or statement of the pleadings and facts which would enable the court to understand the case, or of the issues involved, and no showing that the hill of exceptions, outside of the recital therein, was filed within the time allowed by the court, the appeal can not he reviewed on its merits.
    Appeal from Christian Circuit Court. — Eon. John T. Moore, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    W. P. Sullivan for appellant.
    
      J. G. West and J. T. White for respondent.
   GOODE, J.

After an attentive study of the statement and brief filed by appellant in this case, or rather, of the “brief” as he styles it, we have concluded it must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statute regulating appeals and with Rule 15 of this court. The áppeal is here on a long transcript which is rather voluminous, both in pleadings and testimony. No digest or statement of the pleadings and facts which would enable the court to understand the case at all, has been made. One cannot gather the issues or the testimony on them pro and con from the statement. Neither is there any showing, except by recital in the bill of exceptions itself, that said bill was filed within the time allowed by the court; that is, within the extension of time originally granted. For these reasons the appeal cannot be reviewed on its merits. [Williams v. Harris, 110 Mo. App. 538, 85 S. W. 643; Western Storage Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 426, 52 S. W. 237; Clay v. Pub. Co., 200 Mo. 665, 98 S. W. 575.] Tbe judgment is affirmed.

All concur.