Case Name: The Bank of Monett, Respondent, v. E. E. Moulder, Appellant
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1891-01-06
Citations: 43 Mo. App. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Bank of Monett, Respondent, v. E. E. Moulder, Appellant.
Judges: All the judges concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
The Bank of Monett, Respondent, v. E. E. Moulder, Appellant.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
January 6, 1891.
Practice, Appellate: affirmance for failure to prosecute. An appellant left the state and failed to provide his attorneys with funds for the payment of the costs of the transcript, in consequence whereof the transcript was filed after the time allowed by law for the filing thereof. Held that no diligence was shown, and that the judgment appealed from should, on motion of the respondent, ' be affirmed for failure to prosecute.
Appeal from the Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. Joseph Cravens, Judge.
Affirmed.
• French & Dams and ./. T. Burgess', for appellant.
A. V. Darroch and Acliel Sherwood, for respondent.

Opinion:
Rombauer, P. J.
The plaintiff recovered judgment, June 5, 1890, and the defendant appealed to this court on the following day. No transcript of the record was filed in this court until September 29, following, which was less than fifteen days before the beginning of the term to which the appeal was returnable. The respondent moves for an affirmance of the judgment because the transcript was not filed within the time required by law. Affidavits are filed in opposition to the motion, which show, as sole cause for the delay, that the appellant left the state shortly after the trial, and •failed to provide his attorneys with funds to pay for the transcript. This shows no diligence on part of appellant. One who takes an appeal must make timely provisions for its prosecution. Smith v. Merrill, 26 Mo. App. 65.
The judgment is affirmed.
All the judges concur.