Case Name: Jones, Appellant, v. Evans
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1883-10
Citations: 80 Mo. 565
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jones, Appellant, v. Evans.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 565–567

Head Matter:
Jones, Appellant, v. Evans.
1. Bill of Exceptions, Matter of. A bill of exceptions cannot, as a general rule, include matters which did not occur at the term of the court at which it was filed.
2. Appeal: final judgment. An order dissolving an attachment, is not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie.
Appeal from, Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. S. A. Richardson, Judge.
Affirmed.
This was an appeal from a justice of the peace in Gentry county, to the circuit court. The amount of plaintiff’s claim was $85. Shortly after the filing of the justice’s transcript in the circuit court, the plaintiff sued out an attachment process on the following grounds: 1st, That plaintiff had good cause to believe that defendant was about to remove his property and effects out of the State, with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors. 2nd, That defendant was about to remove out of this State with intent to change his domicile. At the September term, 1879, of the circuit court, being the term to which the appeal was taken and triable, and the writ of attachment was returnable, the defendant filed a plea in abatement, which was tried at said term by the court, sitting as a jury, and the issues found thereon for the plaintiff.
Thereafter, at the same term of the court, and on September 9th, 1879, and before the cause was called for trial on the merits, defendant filed a set-off for $83.50. Upon the same day a jury was empanneled to try the cause on its merits, and the same was begun, and pending said trial defendant withdrew his set-off, and also filed a motion for a new trial on the plea in abatement. After the conclusion of the trial on the merits, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4.50, and on Sejjtem-ber 15th, 1879, the court sustained defendant’s motion for a new trial on tbe plea in abatement. On tbe 1st day of March, 1880, plaintiff filed an unsuccessful motion to strike from tbe record defendant’s plea in abatement, and afterward, at tbe September term, 1880, of tbe court, tbe cause was called for a re-trial on tbe plea in abatement, and plaintiff declining to take any part therein, tbe court dissolved tbe attachment proceeding and adjudged against plaintiff all tbe costs of tbe same. Tbe plaintiff filed motions for a re-bearing and in arrest of judgment, to tbe judgment of tbe court in dissolving tbe attachment, and tbe same being overruled, be filed at said September term, 1880, of tbe court, bis bill of exceptions and appealed to this court.
B. F. Lucas for appellant.
Tbe court below should have refused to grant a new trial on the plea in abatement, but having granted it after all matters in abatement of tbe attachment bad been waived by a'plea to and a trial on the merits, tbe plea in abatement should have been stricken from tbe record, and it was error to dismiss tbe attachment and adjudge tbe costs thereof against plaintiff.
George W. Lewis and Vinton Pike for respondent.
Tbe appeal is not prosecuted from tbe judgment on tbe merits, which was rendered at tbe September" term, 1879, of the circuit court, and is not complained of, but from tbe order made at the September term, 1880, dissolving tbe attachment, because plaintiff refused to prosecute it. From such order no appeal lies to this court. Davis v. Perry, 46 Mo. 449 ; Jones v. Snodgrass, 54 Mo. 597.

Opinion:
Sherwood, J.
The bill of exceptions in this cause was filed at tbe September term, 1880, and included matters not only which bad occurred at that term, but also those which had occurred in the cause at former terms, but as to which, no exceptions had been taken or preserved. The office of a bill of exceptions is to preserve such matter's of exception as occur during the term, to which exception has been taken. There is nothing in this record which takes it out of the operation of the general rule, so that only those matters of exception as occurred at the September term, 1880, can he reviewed by us in any event. But it is unnecessary that we look into the errors said to have happened at that term, for the reason that the judgment on the merits of the cause was rendered at the September term, 1879, and no appeal has been taken from that, both parties being therewith content.
The disposing of the attachment at the September term, 1880, was not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. Davis v. Perry, 46 Mo. 449 ; Jones v. Snodgrass, 54 Mo. 597.
The issue made by the affidavit for attachment and the plea in abatement, was a mere side issue, totally disconnected from the merits, and this especially so, since the attachment was merely ancillary to the original summons. To be effective, an appeal must operate on a final judgment, and not upon something less than a final judgment. A party cannot appeal his cause by piecemeal. Anderson v. Moberly, 46 Mo. 191. And especially when the final judgment, as here, is allowed to stand unaffected by the appeal, ib.
Forasmuch as there is no final judgment, the cause . should be stricken from the docket.
All concur.