Case ID: mo-app_136/html/0016-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MATHIS, Respondent, v. BAXTER et al., Appellants.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    March 9, 1909.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract of Record: Affidavit for Appeal: Filing Bill of Exceptions. AVhere, in a case appealed on a short form, the printed abstract of the record contained no mention of the affidavit for appeal and failed to state that the time extended for filing the hill of exceptions was made before the time originally given had expired, the appeal should he dismissed for failure.
    Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court. — Hon. J. C. Sheppard, Judge.
    Dismissed.
    
      Phil H. Sheridan and Henry B. Davis for appellants.
    
      Chas. O. Borthj Jas. L. Robinson and Jno. M. Atkinson for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This case is here on a short transcript. The printed abstract of the record neither contains an affidavit for an appeal nor alludes to one. It says the time for filing bill of exceptions was extended, but not that this was done before the time originally given had expired. With the record in this State wTe are compelled by a point-blank decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. [Shemwell v. McKinney, 214 Mo. 692, 114 S. W. 1038.] It is so ordered.