Court Opinion

ID: 9777639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:17:35.649501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:57.761629
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
After the opinion was filed in this case, and within the time for filing a motion for *762rehearing, the defendant filed a motion requesting that our order of dismissal be set aside and that the appeal be restored to the docket and considered on the issues submitted by the parties. The burden of the motion is that the appeal is not premature, in fact that the trial court’s jurisdiction is exhausted, because no ruling was ever made on plaintiff Otis Rakestraw’s motion for new trial and it must be deemed denied by the operation of law as provided by Rule 78.04, V.A.M.R. In support of this motion, defendant has offered copies of the trial court’s docket sheets, which are indeed silent as to any ruling on plaintiff Otis’ motion for new trial.
 The defendant is put in the position of appearing to blow hot and cold in the same case, for in his notice of appeal he stated that he appealed in part from an order granting Otis Rakestraw a new trial, although, as we noted in the principal opinion, no such order appeared of record. We cannot, of course, accept defendant’s “exhibit” as proof that no such order was made; as we recently noted in Citizens State Bank of Nevada v. Wales, 469 S.W. 2d 750, we cannot consider extraneous materials not of record and not agreed to by opposing counsel to determine what was done in the trial court. It may well be that the recitation in the notice of appeal that a new trial was granted plaintiff Otis is in error, but if the recitations of the record are in error or do not actually reflect what was done, they should be corrected in the trial court, and not here by means of extraneous filings. Hendershot v. Minich, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 403, 410 [12-15].
In any case our order of dismissal was based on our opinion that the trial court, in the particular circumstances, could not have entered a final, appealable judgment because the verdict returned did not dispose of all the factual issues submitted, either directly or by inference. We adhere to that view. It may, of course, be true simply because of the lapse of time the trial court has lost jurisdiction to enter an order setting aside the judgment prematurely entered pending disposition of the issues presented by Count Two. If that is the case, we direct the entry of such an order, pursuant to the authority granted us by Rule 83.13(c), V.A.M.R., and to that extent the principal opinion is modified. Otherwise, the motion is denied.
All concur.