Case Name: E. A. Seeley, Assignee, Respondent, v. Chillicothe Savings Association, Appellant
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1896-11-23
Citations: 67 Mo. App. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. A. Seeley, Assignee, Respondent, v. Chillicothe Savings Association, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
E. A. Seeley, Assignee, Respondent, v. Chillicothe Savings Association, Appellant.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
November 23, 1896.
Appellate Practice: exception: review. Where the record fails to show an exception, the appellant can not complain in the appellate court.
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit .Court. — Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge.
Affirmed.
Davis, Loomis & Davis for appellant.
Argued and cited authorities on the merits of the case.
Franje Sheets and Lewis A. Chapman for respondent.
This so-called bill does not contain a single exception to any ruling of the court. The appellant offered the two chattel mortgages under which it claimed title. The court sustained an objection to each of them, and no exception was taken or saved. . The court overruled the appellant’s motion for a new trial, and appellant did not except. There was no motion in -arrest filed. So there is nothing before this court. Case v. Fogg, 46 Mo. 44; Missouri Appellate Practice, p. 39; Craighead v. Wells, 21 Mo. 404; Wilson v. Haxby, 76 Mo. 345; City of St. Joseph v. JEnsioorth, 65 Mo. 628; Harrison v. Bartlett, 51 Mo. 170; Koegel v. Givens, 79 Mo. 77; Jackson v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 147.

Opinion:
Gill, J.
This is a controversy as to the ownership of about $1,250, the poeeeds arising from the sale of a stock of goods once belonging to the firm of Gregg, Fell & Wolf, and was brought into court by bill of interpleader filed by the plaintiff. The defendant Savings Association claimed the money by reason of a chattel mortgage made to it by Gregg and Fell.
At the trial of the cause the court, on an objection interposed by plaintiff, excluded the mortgage. But the record fails to show that any exception to the action was saved by the defendant. In the absence, then, of such exceptions, the defendant can not complain here, and we must assume the court ruled correctly in excluding the mortgage. And without this mortgage, it is clear that the defendant has nothing upon which to base its claim to the goods.
More than this, the record shows that defendant saved no exception to the court's action in overruling-the motion for new trial, and under the repeated rulings of this and the supreme court we must affirm the. judgment, since there appears no error on the record proper.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.