Case Name: COMMERCIAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. GEORGE H. MAGEE et al., Defendants; HERMAN G. CHERRY, Appellant
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1907-05-20
Citations: 125 Mo. App. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMERCIAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. GEORGE H. MAGEE et al., Defendants; HERMAN G. CHERRY, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
COMMERCIAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. GEORGE H. MAGEE et al., Defendants; HERMAN G. CHERRY, Appellant.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
May 20, 1907.
APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract: Appeal: Motions. Tbe abstract should show the record entry allowing the appeal and the filing of the motions for a new trial and in arrest, and the showing thereof in the bill of exceptions is insufficient.
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. — No». John P. Butler, Judge.
Affirmed.
James B. Page and Jones & Conhling for appellant.
hosier, Morris & Atwood and Karnes, New & Krauthojf for respondent.
(1) The judgment should be affirmed for the reason that nowhere in appellant’s abstract does it appear that any steps were ever taken for an appeal or that an appeal was ever granted. Greenwood v. Parlin, 98 Mo. App. 407; Jordan v. Railway, 92 Mo. App. 81. (2) There are no copies or recitals from the record to show filing of the pleadings, filing and overruling of motions for new trial and in arrest, steps taken for an appeal or any extension Of time for filing a bill of exceptions. Burdich v. Security Life, 86 Mo. App. 94; Hamilton v. Williams, 91 Mo. App. 511; Jordan v. Railway, 92 Mo. App. 81; McCormick v. Crawford, 98 Mo. App. 323; McQueen v. Groff, 105 Mo. App. 165; School Dist. v. Boyle, 113 Mo. App. 340; Redd v. Railway, — Mo. App. —, 98 S. W. 89.

Opinion:
BROADDUS, P. J.
The respondent makes the point that this cause should be affirmed for the reason that the appellant's abstract does not show that an appeal was granted.
A recital in the bill of exceptions of the fact that an -appeal was taken, does not evidence that fact. It must appear from the abstract of the record proper. [Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 98 Mo. App. 407; Jordan v. Railroad, 92 Mo. App. 81.] And furthermore the abstract of record does not show that any motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment was filed. Such •matters should also be shown dehors the bill of exceptions. [Greenwood v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., supra; Jordan v. Railroad, supra.]
There being no error shown by the record, the cause is affirmed.
All concur.