*1 n

knowledge steep danger loop or notice condition of said and the therefrom, you danger therefrom, so, if if that find there negligently steep the defendant failed to warn descent danger you therefrom, if loop, far side of said and the second taken, danger, proper precautions unless find there was such were if so.” language, charges from clear this of negligence, numbered four, Finding

one and were not abandoned. no error of record the Appellants, et al., Burrell, Gilbert C. Rees R. Trustee, etc., v. C. Respondent Defendant ; Charles et In al., Johnson W. Respondents. terveners, 55 W. S. R. Carroll, Reynolds, J. J W. Dorr Wm. C. S. J. C. ones H. Cummins, appellants. Joseph Brady, H. O’Sullivan, J. 0’Sullivan, Maurice

J. Francis Snyder O. S. Stevens N. F. respondents. R. Bur- brought this action C. Plaintiffs “of trustee trustee, Schnapp, and substitute and O. B. sheriff

rell, seeking re- Missouri,” County, property certain real in Carroll which, by them, trust executed of a strain the foreclosure deed payment County conveyed secure terms, in Carroll land executed also principal $3,000 which was a sum of receiver as general receiver Johnson, them. Thereafter W. *2 corporation, Rosedale, Kansas, a of the Commercial State Bank of of charge in active assistant Williamson, and C. E. receiver thereof inter intervened, filed answer liquidation, by its leave of court of Bank, vening State petition, alleging Commercial therein that in holders “are they liquidating agents, which the are officers inter- The plaintiffs petition. due course “of the described in note fore for prayed judgment veners of the for the amount the by tried was securing closure of it. The cause the deed of trust peti plaintiffs defendants, court, judgment rendered in of the favor interveners favor of dismissed, judgment tion in rendered of foreclosure for plaintiffs note and amount of the the the deed of plaintiffs trust. The have for new motion that their Plaintiffs’ abstract record discloses of the filed which was exceptions, preserved

trial was not in their bill of in court the of February 1932, action 9, exception to the and that no excep- bill of overruling saved their trial was motion for new tions. respondents, in brief, their called attention to defect the fatal

whereupon plaintiffs, days 1, day on October on 1932, five before the court, court, which was hearing the cause in this leave without of filed additional abstract of shown the record in which it is that on 3, 1932, October they they trial court denominate filed in the what “supplement exceptions,” setting to bill of forth therein motion for trial, overruling exception new the order thereto. it and an Section provides Revised of 1929 bills Statutes Missouri thereop exceptions of may judge be trial allowed the court or the any in vacation appellant required by at time before the shall be the appellate rules “of such courts ... serve his abstract of the record, determining purpose and for the of whether bill of ex such ceptions appellate shall have been filed within such time such court shall make reference to docket.” that, Our 15 provides appellant, error, rule the or in shall error, upon respondent, printed copy serve the or defendant days twenty day abstract of which the record before the on cans? is hearing docketed for Clearly, in this court. the additional abstract twenty should not be considered for the that it was reason not served days day hearing, before was which cause docketed for nor supplement exceptions was the or additional bill of filed before the copy appellant required time of his abstract record. serve plaintiffs properly preserve As the not motion new did their exception overruling it, trial nor an to the action of the court in mat- Sovereign exception ters here review. of are not v. [Chambers (2d) 1029; Camp, Lane, (2d) S. W. Lane v. Fur 584.] exceptions ther, should be saved exceptions. all in one bill of [Smith 6Co., v. Insurance S. W. 920.] governing appellate procedure nothing the rules Under there is except proper for review the record here which there is no claim judgment is Boyer, C., error. The affirmed. concurs. foregoing opinion PER CURIAM: The is Campbell, C., adopted opinion as the of the court. Kibble Kibble, James R. friend Purma M. v. Respondent, *3 Appellant. Lamar, Charles respondent. Mytton, & & Owen Parkinson Norris and Schultz appellant. Landis <& Landis friend, sued infant, by his Plaintiff, an injuries damages personal Charles Lamar Lamar for and Jewell driven Lamar by Charles caused owned an automobile plain- upon which bicycle with a coming Jewell Lamar in collision Missouri. Joseph, city St. riding public street tiff was on a in verdict jury resulted Trial to the court and $2,777.77. the sum defendants both of the Jewell defendant, defendant, Lamar, has

Lamar, abided. manner respect with evidence unnecessary to detail