Case Name: George Bondurant, Respondent, v. German Insurance Company of Freeport, Illinois, Appellant
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1898-02-01
Citations: 73 Mo. App. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Bondurant, Respondent, v. German Insurance Company of Freeport, Illinois, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 477–479

Head Matter:
George Bondurant, Respondent, v. German Insurance Company of Freeport, Illinois, Appellant.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
February 1, 1898.
1. Practice, Appellate: abstract: failure to show bill of exceptions filed. On a failure of' appellant’s printed abstract to show any hill of exceptions filed, the appellate court can not review any matters of exception on appeal.
2. Insurance: ownership of property: petition: sufficiency. In a suit on a policy of insurance, a description in the petition of the property insured as “on his barn No. 1, and sheds adjoining,” enumerating the grain in the barn and crib, and alleging the amount of insurance apportioned to each, was a sufficient allegation, by implication, of plaintiff’s ownership in all the property, after verdict, to support the judgment.
Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge.
Aeeirmed.
Harrison & Hmrison for appellant.
The petition does not state that plaintiff was the owner of the property insured, either at the time of the issuance of the policy or at the time • of the loss, and is not sufficient to support the judgment. Scott v. Ins. Co., 65 Mo. App. 75; Story v. Ins. Co., 61 Id. 534; Harness v. Ins. Co., 62 Id. 245; Western Union Co. v. Dunbar, 26 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 628; Fowler v. Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 422; 2 May on Ins. [3 Ed.], sec. 590.
It is not necessary to state a ¿specific consideration; but if one is stated, it must be proved as alleged. The plaintiff, if he recovers at all, must recover on the facts as pleaded. Grail v. Tower, 85 Mo. 249, 253; Ramsay v. Henderson, 91 Mo, 560.
W. W. Fry for respondent.
The appellant is required to file a printed abstract of the entire record in the cause in the office of the clerk of the appellate court. If not, this court has no jurisdiction. R-. S. 1889, sec. 2253.
And such abstract must contain a statement of every matter sought to be raised on appeal, and all facts showing jurisdiction of an appeal by the court, with the exception of record entry of the judgment, and allowance of the appeal, which must be shown by the clerk’s certificate. Wesby v. Bowers, 58 Mo. App. 419, 420; Mason v. Pennington, 53 Id. 118; Hohstadt v. Baggs, 49 Id. 157; Hanauer v. Bradley, 64 Id. 661.
No bill of exceptions having been filed and no exceptions saved in this case, there are no issues for the consideration of the court. Havens v. Lawton, 49 Mo. App. 1; Carver v. Swan, 52 Id. 646; Wilson v. Taylor, 119 Mo. 626. See, also,' Hunt v. Hunter, 52 Mo. App. 263; Cramer v. Aiken, 49 Id. 163; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 96.
The petition states a good cause of action. But if it were defectively stated, the petition is good after judgment. Edmonston v. Phillips, 73 Mo. 59; Bank v. Ley ser, 116 Mo. 51; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 70 Mo. App. 78.

Opinion:
Bond, J.
This action is upon a policy of insurance. It was tried by the court without a jury and judgment rendered for plaintiff for $1,008.50, from which defendant appealed to this coiirt under the portion of section 2258, Revised Statutes 1889, permitting appeals upon certificate of the clerk and accompanying abstract of the record. In the case at bar appellant's printed abstract wholly fails to show that any bill of exceptions was filed. It is defective in . _ . other respects, but this omission is an essential one, and deprives us of the power to review any matters of exception on this appeal. Wesby v. Bowers, 58 Mo. App. 419; Mason v. Pennington, 53 Mo. App. 118; Hohstadt v. Daggs, 49 Mo. App. 157. The record proper is, however, here, and appellant assigns as error the -sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action in that it does not allege ownership by plaintiff in the prop- ° i , , t mi Im-erty covered by the policy. The petition J ^ i * i. is lacking in definiteness on this subject. A consideration of its language shows, however, that the allegation of ownership is necessarily implied. It prefaces a description of the property, to wit, "on his barn No. 1, and sheds adjoining." It then enumerates the grain in the barn and crib, and alleges the amount of insurance apportioned to each. Reading the word "his" as applicable to the succeeding enumerations, a necessary implication of allegation of ownership in all the property arises. This is clearly sufficient after verdict to support a judgment. Murphy v. Ins. Co., 70 Mo. App. 78, and citations; Prendergast v. Ins. Co., 67 Mo. App. 426.
Abstract : failure to show bm of
OwNERSHiPof properly: petition: sufficiency.
No other question being presented for review under the present record, the judgment will be affirmed.
All concur.