| Mo. Ct. App. | Feb 4, 1896
This is an appeal taken by defendants from an order of the .court disallowing damages upon the dissolution of an injunction. The
In Tipton v. Renner, 105 Mo. 1, a case decided when the present law touching official stenographers was in force, the supreme court, speaking of a similar-bill, said: “It is the business of the judge who tried the case to say what evidence was introduced, and he can not devolve this duty upon the clerk, the-reporter or counsel. It is perfectly plain that he can not sign a bill as a true one, until the parol evidence is written out and made a part thereof. He ought not to-sign it until this is done, and, if he does sign the bill before such evidence is written out and inserted, the-evidence must be disregarded in this court.This rule was applied by us in rejecting the evidence in Gorwyn v. Anable, 48 Mo. App. 297" court="Mo. Ct. App." date_filed="1892-02-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gorwyn-v-anable-8260310?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8260310">48 Mo. App. 297, and its soundness has not. been since questioned by any appellate court in this state.
It thus appears that evidence was offered upon the-hearing of this motion, which evidence is not before us for any purpose. Non constat, but the evidence thus-offered may have disproved all claims for damages on part of defendants in the injunction, and we are bound thus to presume in support of the judgment of the trial court. The judgment entry does not indicate what, effect this evidence had upon the finding of the court. It simply recites that “all and singular the premises,.
It necessarily results from the foregoing that the necessary data are not before us to enable' us to determine whether the court erred in its judgment, and, hence, such judgment must be affirmed.' So ordered.