Case Name: Dorman et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coon
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1893-12-23
Citations: 119 Mo. 68
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dorman et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coon.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
Dorman et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coon.
Division Two,
December 23, 1893.
„ Practice; bill of exceptions : extension of time of filing. ■ A bill of exceptions filed after the expiration of the time allowed for filing cannot be considered on appeal, even though filed in open court by consent of parties.
Error to Hickory Circuit Court. — Hon. W. I. Wallace, J ’ 3 udge.
Affirmed.
Wm. O. Mead, T. T. Log and J. H. Childers for plaintiffs in error.
It was agreed between counsel for plaintiffs and defendant that additional time should be given plaintiffs to filo bill of exceptions and that the record entry so showing would be sufficient, which is shown by the foregoing supplemental abstract; having appeared and agreed to the filing of the bill of exceptions the defendant cannot complain now.
T. G. Rechoto for defendant in error.
The bill of exceptions not having been filed during the term of court at which the motion for new trial was overruled, and not having been filed within the time leave was given to do so, this court will disregard the saíne and affirm the judgment, as there is no error in 'the record proper. Eevised Statutes, 1889, sec. 2168; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570; Peckv. Childers, 73 Mo. 484; Gillv. Scruggs, 79 Mo. 187.

Opinion:
Sherwood. J.
Ejectment for lands in Hickory county and judgment for defendant.
The record shows that leave was granted plaintiffs to file their bill of exceptions on the fourth judicial day of the next term of the court; but the bill was not filed until the twentieth day of May, which was the eighth judicial day of the next or May term of the court. This fact renders the bill worthless as a bill of exceptions. And the fact that the record shows that the bill was filed in open court by 'consent of parties," gives the bill no judicial standing. After the time expires for filing a bill, there does not exist any power in the court or out of it, or in the parties, or their counsel, further to extend the time. State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559.
As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.
All concur.