*1 1920. TERM, OCTOBER 285 Mо.] Ford definitely testimony, abstract
is made respective lines color of the show some manner the intelligent mаy understanding had- be in order that an presumed all these matters facts. It is to be forego will hence we a retrial and will obviated be discussion now. further reversed and the remanded.
The is All concur. Appellants,
ALFRED ELIZABETH FORD and FORD, A. et LAUGHLIN al. L. Two, December Division Equity Suit: ABSTRACT: Additional Abstract:
DEFECTIVE Bules 7 equity, and 11. a suit wherein the In is re- adjudge quired facts, de novo the merits considered, controversy not be unless аll the evidence will brought up by proper is and' embodied abstract; if no the evidence offered defendants to sustain their defense of the appealing plaintiffs, forth in abstract ad- set respondents, after abstract ditional filed time, forth, which such evidence was filed out all by appellants considered, plea, respondents support said cannot be of their objection appel- respondents interpose Rule and if corrected, lants’ judgment affifmed. Appeal Thomas Court.—Hon. B. from Jackson Circuit Judge.
Buckner, Affirmed. appellants. Titus for
Frank Laughlin respondents. A.
L. SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, y. Laughlin. proceeding commenced
MOZLEY, C.This County. Court of in the Jackson Circuit quiet City, Missouri, *2 Kansas a bill controversy; title to the real to set aside estate conveyances certain It also asks therein etc. for other relief. affirmative pleading еquitable res- an
Defendant filed answer, quie'.U etc; asked therein that said title be they prayed granted equitablе as- relief therein. hearing
On the the circuit court dis- plaintiffs’ bill, cross-bill, missed defendants’ and enter- aed in favor of defendants'for cost. Plaintiffs trial, filed a motion for a new the cause was which was overruled, and duly appeаled by them to this court. plaintiffs On December filed herein an which, abstract of conclusion of following: tiffs’ evidenсe, recites the “Thereupon the defendants, to sustain the issues on behalf, evidence, their oral introducеd and docu- mentary, as to wit: follows,
“Mr, The defendants Laughlin: offer including exceptions, bill files, and the Supreme mandate of the in record entries, 48,368.” No. objection to the Plaintiff’s introduction of this evi- dence was overruled.
Apрellants’ page abstract, 93, recites that: papers “The above offered in evidence plaintiffs figurеs are in [defendants] words to wit:” follows,
No above offered is set out the abstract before us. ’ Appellants mоtion for a new pages trial, set out following: 109-10, contains the plea “2. Because of res by defendants in this not sustained cause, or sustain- produced able under the this cause plaintiffs.” Mo.] OCTOBER TERM,
Respondents, January filed herein оn' 10, 1920, pro- setting additional record, abstract of the ceedings, etc., records, offered put dence, in their abstract proper and -which failed-to and filed record, it was not served because delay, objeсtions time. The stated and reasons for case. with the defendants, were ordered taken conceptiоn According; it is not law, to our controversy. necessary go into the merits proceeding in wherein we I. As this is a pass required the facts of the con merits novo, de consider cannot troversy, of record the additional the matters Defective Abstract. relating to by defendants their ev^ence *3 adjudicatei. res of (7) court, follows: as reads
Rule Seven equity embod- shall be the entirе evidence “In cases provided, exceptions; that it shall be in bill of iéd the documentary legal of effects to sufficient state the dispute admissibility to the no dence where there parol provided legal further that thеreof; and or effect a form to narrative where be reduced evidence shall preserved.” its full forсe and can be done and effect this having appellants If for not desirous of counsel by the offered аs record encumbered his made at least have an honest res he should as was same, substance done effort to forth the W. (Mo.) recently v. 216 S. Lombard, Crews by We Court Banc. are determined our equity purposely in an that, cоunsel, where leaves defense relied on defendants, of the main reject equity court of to and asks a evi here, compelled adversary bring has his been dence which supply an intentional his own record, here to defect supra, Seven, affirm court should enforce Rule [Huggins judgment. 202 l. Davidson, v. S. W. (Mo.) 197 W. 66-7; l. c. 399; Kidd, Short v. S. Steven c. (Mo.) Nickey v. 177 l. 615-16; W. c. v. Smith, son S. 536 SUPREME OP MISSOURI, COURT LaugMin. v. Haughowout, 207 v. Leader, 42; 235 Mo. l. Gibbs c. l. 217- c. Mo. c. Mo. l. 183 391; State ex rel. Jarrott, v. Courtney Parker 267-8; l. Blackwell, c. 18; v. Mo. . Spratt, Mo. Vanhoozer, 621; v. l. v. 142 Mo Blout McElroy Benne 294; 101 Mo. 54; c. v. Maxwell, 250.] Schnecko, 100 Mo. supra, pages 217-18,
In State Jarrott, еx rel. speaking in which all J., Banc, Gantt, court concurred, said: equity “But review cases courts finding not bound either as to con- the ultimate facts or his chancellor, ruled, uniformly clusions of has been law, and, hence, it court in whole this cases that the brought up appeal- rule this must ’’ long force. effect has been n II. Seven, Rule heretofore has been printed Reports in the backs of Missouri our for more quarter century, than a aof no excuse has been appellants’ its violation in this duty case. It was his the matters offered as On account of his own derеliction of. duty, adversary compelled, by supplemental has been bring abstract, to before this court matters which have been abstract. As interpose tiffs’ counsel has seen fit to 11 Rule this court, records before us pre- corrected so as have them set out the *4 opinion sented below, court that judgment should be and that the affirmed, on account of his failure to in- corporate in his abstract of record defendants’ relating defense of Railey
Let the be affirmed. White, CC., concur. foregoing opinion
PER CURIAM:—The of Mozkey, hereby adoptéd isO., as the of the court. All concur. judges