*1 1924. TERM, Attоrney-General v. Parrish. respective We cited briefs of counsel and decisions outside which throw text-books, light very little on the merits of the is clear to case. It authority us that no citation of needed to sustain holding respondent aсtion of the lower court in that was qualified question. authority to hold the If office opinion were the able needed, and unanswerable Attorney ex J., rel. v. Mack- Circuit Rombauer, App. page following, lin, Mo. 339 and settles question expresses subject. fully our views page 343, sustains action lower court. On Judge concisely theory our the law states Rombauer in a case of this character, follows: person pays
“If a property owns an interest in pays regardless a tax thereon, he tax fact to his property whom the is assessed.” finding conclusively
The of the trial court sus- judgment tained the evidence below case. accordingly Higbee, affirmed. concurs. G., opinion PER CURIAM:—The Railey, adopted isC., аs the court. All of the judges concur. Attorney-
THE STATE ex inf. JESSE BARRETT, Appellant, General, E. A. rel. v. J. C. McCANN, et al. PARRISH Two,
Division March 1925. APPELLATE 1. JURISDICTION: Consolidated School District. This jurisdiction judgment court alone has in a of an from a quo purpose challenge validity warranto suit whоse is to organization of a consolidated school district and to its direc- oust tors, since the Constitution this court has in all involving , cases “title to office State.” ap- -: No Printed Abstract: No Index. in which 2. An only record, pellant has failed tо file a abstract of dismissed, index, wiU be typewritten files without OP MISSOURI, SUPREME COURT ex inf. Assignment: assignment -: Demurrer. An in the brief the trial erred demurrer against evidence, law, where the because the quo *2 alleged warranto facts in defendants’ writ return to the otherwise, reрly a no error as- were not controverted signed sufficiency pleadings, considered cannot be to the assignment nothing condition, for, raises on in such such to review. -: Dismissal Affirmance. Where the must be dis-
4. relating missed for failure the rules and stаtutes to a, printed abstract, time which a writ of and the plain- expired, it is immaterial whether error be sued out tiff’s dismissed or affirmed.. 1, Appeal 2069, 4, Courts, 4 J. 2 and C. Citations Headnotes.: Appeal Error, 2069, 2185, 2435; 3, Error, J. 1584. C. X 3 C. Appeal Taney from Circuit Court.—Hon. Stewart, 'Fred
Judge. Dismissed. appellant.
Adams & Moore for illegally formed. districhwas consolidated school attempt It was an to a school district annex a common city high an ad- district annex which has a school. To joining city district common school district to town or hаving high majority com- of the voters of school special elec- mon school therefor at a district must vote city school tion, majority then the school board whether must determine vote of the directors city such district will The votеrs be annexed. proposition do at all. Sec. district on vote R. 1919. S. respondents.
B. G. Ford (1) The court did not err rendering judgment, dismissing relator’s demurrer and 1924. TEEM, quashing bill, discharging information and writ, defendants, and that the consolidated school district legally duly, lawfully аnd is formed. R. Bright,
secs. 11257-11258;
ex inf.
State
RAILEY, C.This case came to on re-assignment, adjournment January since the Call, 1925, of this Division. *3 originally pending cause was in this court and,
through erroneously mistake, was transferred to the Springfield Appeals. of The latter Court Jurisdiction. properly certified the case back to this court opinion transferring for our and in its determination, purpose the of the said: "The here is case, organiza- challenge validity undoubtedly tо of the consolidated school and to district, tion of the oust thereof.” directors pro VI
Section 12 of Article of our Constitution jurisdiction Supreme Court on vides that the any involving title in all "the to oases office following" authorities: Stаte See also State.” Bright, Thompson 599 ex inf. and ex inf. West cited; State cases Consolidated c. 138-9, Mo. l. 234 S. District, School Smith, inf. Barker ex Wright Morgan, 187 W. inf.
Ramsey
Mo. l. c.
184 S. W. l. c.
Huck,
I. While has filed in court a copy proceedings ivritten and of the circuit sig
court,; without index he has thereto, nally to file herein a failed Ah^ract proceedings court, trial the record and Necessаry, required including thereto as index petition, law. The in his amended on which relator, in his brief, wTas as set out attacked tried, the case validity One, district Number consolidated school Taney sought respondents County, oust to said transcript on file district. The of said school directors respondents return filed that a voluminous here shows petition, allegations controverting cause, setting relating up their etc. It election, the facts putting appear any reply in issue filed does allegations return. The tran of said affirmative script court, that the the conclusion further discloses respondents made an found for of the whole Transcript, finding etc. The above facts, elaborate forty copy, mainly composed between carbon covers fifty pages. provided that 1919', 1479, Revised Statutes Section manner is now the time and should “within ap- prescribed the rules' of such hereafter be the entire record pellate file abstraсts court,, appellate clerk such in the office cause of said copy prin' deliver time, such within (Italics ours.) respondent.” ed provides a com- that: “Where of this brought court in to this plete first respondent *4 deliver shall stancе, the days thirty be- at least the record copy abstract his hearing, day cause is set on which the fore .the later than the copies clerk not our with thereof ten file hear- is set for which the cause preceding day the onе on ours.) (Italics ing.” : follows court reads 13 of
Rule 12 shall in Rules mentioned “The abstracts .and complete paged type, have be printed in fair OCTOBER TERM, 1924. .Yol.
dex the specifically end which index thereof, identify exhibits where there are more thаn one, and said abstracts shall set so much the record as is nec- forth complete essary understanding questions to a of all the presented (Italics ours.) for decision.” 16'provides any appellant any that: “If in comply civil cаse fail to with the rules numbered when the cause is called for hear- ing, appeal, (Italics will dismiss the or writ error.” ours.) with, signally has failed to print- statute rules of court. He has required,
ed no abstract of record as above and in his simply pеtition, brief has set out the amended garbled exceptions, 'argumen- extracts from the bill duty print form. tative was the an ab- filing showing petition, stract tine respondents, judgment return of rendered, the overruling of the steps motion for trial, new same, рerfect taken to set out incorpo- abstract of the record, the evidence legal rated either as inor written, ef- fect. reports,
Numerous cases can be in our found where appeals judgments have been dismissеd below af for failure of the firmed, set out of the record one or more of the material re quirements proce statute and our rules made both the but, statute and dure, our rules ignored, completely been and no effort been to file herein kind of a made and indexed plain It therefore of the record. becomes our duty to either affirm dismiss (Mo.) [City Chartrand, v. S. Louis Raub, St. Perringer 254 W. 537-8, 703; St. - Vaughn, 528-3, 273 Mo. Bank Louis Kropp, cases cited; Mo. l. c. 220 and Case Car Young, Louis St. Mill land, Company Louis, ing Coleman v. St. Rob-
460' MISSOURI, SUPREME COURT OF y. Attorney-General
State ex ini. Parrish. Pennowfsky erts, Mo. Mo. Coerver, Publishing Clay Stark v. Co., Zehnder, 204 Mo. Whiting 200 Mo. v. Lead 195 Mo. Nolan Co., 167.] Johns, c. l. single quotation of the trend is to show A sufficient many well others in authorities, as respect appellate the matter courts Whiting Co., In Lead consideration. language, l. in deal c. clear 510, Brace, J., in and forceful ing subject, with this said: brought on com
“The is here in this case plete transcript, an to file has failed but (R. by required sec. abstract 813’), statute S. 1899', thereof as only paper The rules 12 court. ‘Statement, endorsed, filed herein purport Argument Appellant.’ not Brief and does upon record of the not contain an abstract and does required ought the stat which the same be based suрpose that It is a mistake to ute rules aforesaid. complete transcript filing in this court record of the dispenses necessity an 546; there with the [McLaughlin Whitehead v. of.' Fischer, Turner, 475; Clements v. Railroad, 176 Mo.
466.] to what mere of counsel as The appellant’s expressed can in the statement is, evade Counsel cannot thus be taken for an abstract. not making duty correct abstract pledged, professional verity honor which their to the ap duty upon Hence, the court. or devolve peal concur.” will All be dismissed. full accord cited authorities Brace,-supra, room for ruling leave no Judg*e disposition be made which should as to
cavil or doubt th.e appeal. of only require, not II. Our' rules require likewise but record,
abstract of at the conclusion dex Dismissal. recor(j_ mandatory in rule 13.] [Rule This complied the court warrants with, and, unless terms its TERM, dismissing in ignored, supra, only Rule 13,
but even the
contains no index.. The
accordingly
[Manuel
should
dismissed.
*6
Railroad, 186 Mo. l. c.
Foster v.
500;
150
Vernon Co.,
McGuigan,
Murrell
Mo. 316-17;
v.
334;
Halstead
v. Stone,
649;
Cannon,
v.
Brand
The brief of on file supra, comply plain provisions and, with the [Longan K. appeal dismissed'. hence, the should be Rys. K. C. (Mo.) c. Crockett l. C. 253 S. Co., W. Rys. (Mo.) Newhouse, c. Co., 243 l. Smith S. W. Ry. Royal Co., (Mo.) v. K. C. S. W. c. l. (Mo.) 573.] 190 S. W. single assignment of error
IY. There but appellant’s court “The brief, as follоws: which reads demurrer erred Assignment. judg- because evidence; the close such case.” against the law ment was respondent’s were alleged return, The facts, error reply, and, no otherwise, not controverted pleadings, it insufficiency assigned being toas appeal must nothing here, review leaves aforesaid. reasons for the dismissed printing, abstracts procedure in (a) to rules As short or under full Lowenstein, Frohman see form OF SUPREME COURT MISSOURI, Jones v. Patterson. (Mo.) Vaughn Vaughn, c. l.
S. W. 345. appeal
V. April As thе was taken in case on suing 18, 1823, the long time for a writ out error has expired. since therefore makes no ma- Dismissal terial difference whether the be- Affirmance. be affirmed or the low dismissed. appellant’s account of failure to On pointed the statute and rules of heretofore Eigbee, out, the herein dismissed. concurs. opinion PER CURIAM:—The Raidey, adopted All as the of the court. C., judges concur.
WILLIAM ZOLLIE al. JONES et CLIF- CHARLES al.; PATTERSON
FORD et PARK and ELIHU Appellants. STUART THOMPSON, Two, Division March Foreign Warning 1. JURISDICTION: Of Court: Non-Rеsident: Order: jAttack. Collateral A a of the record court of Ken- duly tucky, authenticated, showing appointment an and attorney represent suit non-resident devisee in a to construe Kentucky will, showing warning and the issuance order to оf a non-resident, although said itself been order mutilated torn, showing judgment reciting she made duly party summoned, Kentucky together prior statutes n ' declaring, pertinent among matters, against that “a defendant warning attorney whom is made order whom an has been appointed constructively been be deemed summoned may proceed day thereafter, on the thirtieth cordingly,” and the ac- action Kentucky Appeals and the decisions of Court ruling appointment warning in similar cases that such order sufficient, non-residents, gave of such twenty-eight years and in a collateral in this after