*1 776 ease. proceedings transcript proper upon a review

for rec required fact, to examine notwithstanding this we are But, is error 'whether reversible therefrom proper determine ord Kel v. ; c. 441 State 432, l. App. Carr, v. manifest. [State rec however, that transcript discloses, ler, The 263 S. W. 171.] copy only the certified We have before us proper is deficient. ord The appeal. granting an the order judgment and verdict and of the part record is a upon which defendant information tried out, transcript not con pointed heretofore proper and, as portions proper the record The said information. tain copy regular face. to the upon their As record before which are us review. The nothing further us to therefore, there proper, Underwood, (2d) v. 27 W. presented in case of State S. situation here. We there 1070, almost identical to situation held dismissed, here. we so appeal must is, therefore, dismissed. All al., Respondents, et The State Se Appellant. curity Missouri, Commission City Appeals. April Kansas Court Hadley Alley J. respondents (no brief).

Boy McKittrick, Attorney-General, Hammett, Jr., and Aubrey Assistant Attorney-General, appellant. *2 Security Com- by

SPERRY, is an the State C.—This a defendant, from rul- herein mission, which will be referred to as McHargue Mc- Rachel ing the and by ordering circuit James court plaintiffs, wife, will as Hargue, whom we refer to husband and pension there was a case placed age Originally on the rolls. old agree- by in but pending plaintiffs the for each of circuit court the parties ment such were consolidated. cases here, presents proposition but one assigns, briefs' Defendant and support That to-wit: there is no substantial evidence which could finding plaintiffs a that the less property by worth than Owned was only question court, $2000. This in the trial and was involved the plaintiffs. it was resolved in favor of land, they property

Plaintiffs’ of eighty consisted acres of where lived, forty-one in tract, an one-fourth acre and undivided interest personal They property apparently agreed of value of $170. the mortgage owed a debt of on the eighty $200 acre tract. records, tax by plaintiffs, eighty showed the acres introduced $1850,

to be the forty-one valued at acre valued tract was therein at According $2187. the sum the tax to records the of net value the real estate Adding personalty $1962.50. the value of there- .was to, $2132.50. the value According net evidence would to this plaintiffs, were not the prayed. to relief entitled plaintiffs

But were by evidence, not foreclosed the even above though they it, they did introduce because other evidence introduced point. on the Maddox, same (2d) 282, l. c. 284: [Raw Rodan v. St. Company, Louis Transit Plaintiff 392.] that the testified net value of the real estate owned by him $1000, less Lindsey, township was than witness who was clerk assessor, plaintiffs and testified for that the plaintiffs’ value of estate, real exclusive liens, $1100, Alley, county was about witness county, clerk plaintiffs, of Mercer testified placed value and the eighty the $1000, acre tract at or at a value of $800. net These wit .that, qualified nesses were all testify to as to real estate in values community. Defendant witnesses, being of two introduced testimony' one. agent the land of an company, insurance being engaged other and the in community estate, in real loan and insurance business. Their testimony identical, and was to the. effect that real estate. plaintiffs true, plain- worth, net, bars by $2157,

owned which if tiff’s claim. plaintiff, township are to testimony

Unless we that the assessor, clerk county probative and clerk is to no entitled value, or that it not substantial evidence of the any does constitute plaintiffs’ value of property, we must sustain trial It position court. is the of defendant that such evidence not constitute upon substantial evidence the judgment. whieh rest to that, We think plaintiffs’ only evidence had the offered been the by evidence in have trial, offered it sufficient the' would been trial court have plaintiffs. to favor of found in equity power evidence, weigh not asked exercise to

We nor to resolve the between the urged conflict witnesses’ We are to reverse the the sole reason that there was not sufficient upon substantial evidence may which it can rest. This we not do presented. view of the record here *3 should be affirmed. Campbell, C., concurs. PER foregoing opinion Sperry, CURIAM: —The C., adopted opinion

as the of the court. The is affirmed. All

MARCH, 1937. J. A. Schaefer (Plaintiff), Appellant, v. Estate of Charles Magel, Deceased, Julius H. Drucker, Administrator D. N., Respondent. (Defendant), 108 S. W. 609. Appeals. Opinion September 14,

St. Louis Court of filed 1937. rehearing September 29, Motion for overruled ofWrit certiorari denied December