Case ID: mo-app_33/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elijah Crum, Respondent, v. William Elliston et al., Appellants.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 4, 1889.
    1. Appellate Fraetiee. Before the appellate court can consider objections to the giving of instructions, the record must show that exception was saved to the action of the trial court in giving such instructions and that objection to such action was urged in the motion for a new trial as a ground therefor.
    2. -: affirmance. There being nothing in the record of this case to distinguish it from the case of F. C. Crum et al. vs. the same defendants, ante, p. 591, this case is affirmed on the authority of that case.
    
      
      Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeAkmond, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. Haynie and Fyhe, Calvird <h Lewis,, for appellants.
    Instruction number two given by the court, to the effect that jmima facie the property if reduced to possession became the property of the husband, was incorrect. If so reduced to p ossession by him prior to act of 1875, the property became absolutely his. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443 ; Kedwell v. Kirhpatrich, 70 Mo. 214; Burns v. Banyert, 16 Mo. App. 22.
    
      McBeth & La Due, for respondent.
    Same as in F. C. Crum et al. vs. same defendants, ante, p. 591.
   Smith, P. J.

This case is analogous in every particular to that of Crum & Crum against these defendants, already decided at this term (ante, p. 591), except that the defendants make some objection to an instruction here which was not in that case.

In looking over the defendants’ abstract of the record we do not find that they have saved any exception to the action of the circuit court in the giving of the instruction referred to in their brief, nor that this objection was urged in the motion for a new trial as one of the grounds therefor.

And for these reasons we are precluded from an examination into that matter. Naughten v. Stagg, 4 Mo. App. 271 ; City of Linneus v. Bushy, 19 Mo. App. 20; State v. Barnet, 81 Mo. 120.

Discarding, as we must, from our consideration the defendants’ objection to said instruction, there is nothing left in the record of the case to distinguish it from the other case against the same defendants which we have already mentioned, and our conclusion in this case must be the same as was in that. The other judges concurring, the judgment is accordingly affirmed.