85 Mo. App. 16 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1900
— The petition amongst other things alleged: (1) that the plaintiffs were the owners of a certain lot in the defendant city on which there was a dwelling
To this petition the defendant demurred in the court below on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and being there overruled the objection so taken is renewed here.
It is a sufficient answer to the defendant’s objection to the plaintiffs’ petition to say that the power conferred upon
The petition, we think, is not subject to the objection urged against it, and as the abstract does not show that the evidence taken at the trial, or, the instructions, or, the ful-ings of the trial court thereon, or, the exceptions taken thereto, were preserved by bill of exceptions, we can not notice the points of objection urged by the defendant relating to the admission and rejection of evidence and the giving and refusal of instructions. The abstract of the record fails to show, as it should, that a bill of exceptions was not only allowed but that it was filed. Nichols v. Engler, 78 Mo. App. 501; Bank v. Darnell (decided by us at present term).
As there is no error apparent upon the face of the record the judgment will be affirmed.