Case ID: sw2d_845/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alice Ewing Phillip CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. Emerson SUTTON, Appellant.
    No. 62256.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Dec. 22, 1992.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1993.
    Emerson Sutton, pro se.
    John K. Sheehan, Kirkwood, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant (Debtor) appeals the jury award of $9,000 on Respondent’s (Creditor) action to recover an amount due and owing on a promissory note. Debtor has elected to handle his own appeal to his detriment. His brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 in most respects. Debtor alleges four points of error: (1) failure of Creditor to make a submissible case; (2) insufficient evidence to support the jury instructions; (3) improper introduction of evidence; and (4) failure to instruct on comparative fault. We are unable to review the record for these errors, because Debtor did not file a transcript of the trial proceedings showing wherein and how there was reversible error. Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co., 800 S.W.2d 806, 806[1] (Mo.App.1990); Verdin v. Agnew, 715 S.W.2d 544, 546[1] (Mo.App.1986); Cooper v. General Standard, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 117, 122[6] (Mo.App.1984). It is the duty of Debtor to furnish the transcript and in its absence there is nothing for us to review. Cooper, 674 S.W.2d at 122[6].

Appeal dismissed.