Case Name: CHARLES T. LEWELLYN et al., Respondents, v. GEO. E. LEWELLYN, Admr., etc., Appellant
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1901-01-15
Citations: 87 Mo. App. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES T. LEWELLYN et al., Respondents, v. GEO. E. LEWELLYN, Admr., etc., Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 9–16

Head Matter:
CHARLES T. LEWELLYN et al., Respondents, v. GEO. E. LEWELLYN, Admr., etc., Appellant.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
January 15, 1901.
1. Bill of Exceptions, Time of Tiling: PRACTICE, TRIAL: PRACTICE, APPELLATE. When the time for filing bill of exceptions expires on November 1, an order made by the court on November 2' granting a further extension of time is without authority and void.
2. Practice, Trial: APPEAL PROM PROBATE COURT: AFFIDAVIT FOR APPEAL, EFFECT OF. The filing of an affidavit for an appeal, in the probate court, ousts the probate court of jurisdiction of the cause and transfers it to the circuit court.
3. -:-:-: TRANSCRIPT: WAIVER. When a transcript from probate court is filed, the circuit court becomes possessed of the cause, and if the parties appear and go to trial without raising any objection to the transcript, the defects and imperfections of the transcript are waived.
4. Practice, Trial: ADMINISTRATOR, REMOVAL OE: MISMANAGEMENT OE ESTATE, SUFFICIENCY OE COMPLAINT. Where a complaint alleges generally that an administrator failed to administer an estate according to law, and to inventory personal property of the estate, and to wind up the estate within the time prescribed by statute, it charges mismanagement for which cause an administrator may be removed, and is sufficient after verdict to support a judgment.
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — lion. E. B. McKee, Judge.
Affirmed.
Blair & Marchand and Olías. Hiller for appellant.
(1) The trial court had no jurisdiction over case or cause of action, because there was no certified transcript of the record and proceedings had in the probate court relating to the case, transmitted to the clerk of the trial court as required by law. There is no certificate under seal, or without seal, showing the pretended transcript filed in trial court to be the proceedings of any court.' Nor is there anything in it showing that the clerk or judge’s name is to it; nor as to who was the clerk or judge of said court at the time said pretended transcript was filed in said trial court. This is not an error, defect or imperfection in the proceedings of probate court, but a failure of clerk or judge to send up a transcript under certificate and seal as required by law. The name “J. M-. Hays, judge of probate,” without a certificate and the seal of office affixed, amounts to nothing. R. S. 1889, sec. 291, p. 113. (2) If it be held that the amended application, referred to in said pretended transcript, may be considered in passing upon the question of the jurisdiction of the trial court, then we present that said application is not verified by plaintiffs, or either of them, as required by law — no affidavit at all; simply a jurat appended to application. E. S. 1889, sec. 42, p. 132; 1 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, sec. 1; p. 307, sec. 3, p. 309 and sec. 4, p. 310; Barhydt v. Alexander, 59 Mo. App. 188; Norman v. Horn, 36 Mo. App. 419; Hargadine v. Yan Horn, 72 Mo. 370; Brown v. Moody, 64 Mo. 547; Adams v. Oowles, 95 Mo. 501; 2 Pattison’s Oomp. Dig., secs. 150, 151, 196, 197, 199; Abernathy v. Moore, 83 Mo. 65. (3) The pretended transcript does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. The said transcript neither shows nor contains any grounds known to be the law for the revocation of defendant’s letters of administration; nor does it refer to or identify any paper accompanying the same that does contain such grounds. If it be held that the amended application may be considered in passing upon this question, then we present that it can not be so considered because not verified. The law requires that it shall be verified, but it was • not done — no affidavit at all — simply a jurat appended. E. S. 1889, sec. 42, p. 132.
T. L. & S. J. Montgomery and W. T. Rutherford for respondents.
(1) Appellant raises the question of defect in the record for the first time, in a general way, in the motion in arrest of judgment, and seeks to gain a technical advantage of respondents without giving the trial court an opportunity to authorize any correction of the record, or even specifically calling attention thereto. This he can not do. The record is now full and complete. Ganz v. Weisenberger, 66 Mo. App. 106, 110;' Mellor v. Eailroad, 105 Mo. 455; Scott-Eorce Hat Go. v. Holmes, 127 Mo. 400. (2) .The trial judge had no authority to sign the bill of exceptions after the time had expired as aforesaid nor, could -he at a súbséqúent term, or in vacation sign and allow the bill of exceptions. State v. Sweeney, 54 Mo. App. 580, and cases cited; State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559; Burdoin v. Town of Trenton, 116 Mo. 358; State v. Mosley, 116 Mo. 545.

Opinion:
BLAND, P. J.
The judgment from which the appeal was taken was rendered on April 9, 1897, and leave was granted at the same term to file bill of exceptions on or before August 10, 1897. Timely orders were made by the judge of the court extending the time for filing bill of exceptions to September 1, 1898. 'On the twenty-first day of August, the' parties agreed in writing to an extension of the time to file the bill to November 1, 1898.
On November 2 the judge of the court extended the time for filing the bill to November 15, 1898. The bill was filed on November 14, 1898. .
The time for filing the bill of exceptions, as per agreement of parties of August 21, 1898, expired on November 1, 1898. It was, therefore, beyond the power of the court to grant a further extension after that date. The order of the court made on the second day of November, extending the time to the fifteenth of the same month, is without authority and void. State v. Schuchman, 133 Mo. 111; Loewen v. Hicks, 63 Mo. App. 79. There is no bill of exceptions in the cause — nothing to review, and the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.