Court Opinion

ID: 9647667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:44:41.850981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:51.655220
License: Public Domain

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer
PER CURIAM.
In their motion for rehearing or to transfer, the appellants urge the proposition that since this was a court-tried case they are entitled, under Civil Rule 73.01(d), V. A.M.R., to a review of the entire case upon both the law and the evidence. True, but that does not excuse them from compliance with Civil Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R., requiring that the points relied on in their brief contain specific statements of error. The appellants’ Points Relied On here merely state that the judgment “was contrary to the weight of the evidence”, that tells neither court nor counsel wherein or why the trial court erred. In Schlanger v. Simon, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 825[1, 3], the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to an appellate review of the entire case in an equity suit, but added: “But the appellate court performs the above functions only in respect to the specific matters urged by appellant as constituting error. It does not review the whole case on its own initiative to determine what result it would have reached if it were sitting as the trial judge. * * * An appellate court should not become an advocate of one of the parties, and therefore it is not the duty of an appellate court to search the evidence is an effort to find some theory, and facts in support thereof, to establish a general assertion that the trial court reached the wrong result.” See, also, Yates v. White River Valley Electric CoOperative, Mo.App., 414 S.W.2d 808 [4]. Appellants’ motion for a rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Supreme Court is denied.
ANDERSON, P. ]., and RUDDY and WOLFE, JJ., concur.