Case Name: TOWER GROVE PLANING MILL COMPANY, Respondent, v. HORNBERG et al., Appellants
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1908-11-05
Citations: 133 Mo. App. 305
Docket Number: 
Parties: TOWER GROVE PLANING MILL COMPANY, Respondent, v. HORNBERG et al., Appellants.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
TOWER GROVE PLANING MILL COMPANY, Respondent, v. HORNBERG et al., Appellants.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
November 5, 1908.
APPELLATE PRACTICE. The Court of Appeals will not reverse tbe rulings on motions filed in the trial court where the appellant did not except to the rulings at the time they were made.
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. J. W. McElhinney, Judge.
Affirmed.
F. M. Kittrell for appellants.
Geo. W. Lubke and Geo. W. Lubke, Jr. for respondent.
Only the record proper in this cause is before this court, no exceptions having been saved to the rulings of the trial court sustaining the motion to affirm the judgment of the justice and overruling the motion for leave to amend the notice served on plaintiff at the term when said rulings were made. The record proper shows no error. R. S. 1899, sec. 728; State ex rel. v. Grant, 76 Mo. 95; Simpson v. Scroggins, 182 Mo. 560; Davis v. Bond, 84 Mo. App. 504; Carpenter v. McDavitt, 53 Mo. App. 393; Page v. Shoe Co., 103 Mo. App. 662.

Opinion:
GOODE, J.
This was an action instituted before a justice of the peace to enforce a mechanic's lien. It went on appeal to the circuit court where the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because sufficient notice of it had not been given. This motion was sustained, and a motion filed by appellants in the appeal from the justice, for permission to amend the notice of appeal was overruled. The rulings on those two motions, to-wit: the one for leave to amend notice of appeal and the other to dismiss the appeal, have been brought to this court for examination; but we are of the opinion they cannot be reviewed here because appellants saved no exceptions to the ruling of the court on either of the motions. Afterwards a motion for rehearing was filed and overruled and appellants saved an exception to that, but this was not enough. It was necessary to except to the rulings on the motions when made, if appellants desired to have them examined here. This very point was determined in Am. Wine Co. v. Scholer, 13 Mo. App. 345.
There being no error in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.