
    ISAAC C. NOVINGER & SON, Respondents, v. QUINCY, OMAHA & KANSAS CITY RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    June 8, 1908.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract: Filing Bill of Exceptions. The abstract must show the bill of exceptions signed by the judge was filed by proper order of court duly entered of record; and a mere recital that it was filed is insufficient.
    Appeal from Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Hat. M. Shelton, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. G. Trimble and Willard P. Hall for appellant.
    
      Rieger & Rieger, H. F. Millan and Higbee & Mills for respondent.
    (1) Appellant’s abstract of the record is wholly insufficient. Harding y. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 630; Stark y. Zehnder, 204 M'o. 449; Cramer y. Company, 97 S. W. 969. (2) It is not recited that the record shows an order made at the May term, 1907, extending the time to file the bill of exceptions. State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 105 S. W. 635; State y. Paul, 203 Mo. 681; Hughes y. Henderson, 95 Mo. App. 313; Cramer y. Company, 97 S. W. 969; Everett v. Butler, 192 Mo. 566; Harris y. Wilson, 199 Mo. 415; Clay v. Pub. Co., 200 Mo. 673; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205. Mo. 136.
   BROADDUS, P. J.

The respondents in their brief and .argument call our attention to the fact that the abstract in the case fails to show that a proper bill of exceptions was filed in the case. The recital of the abstract is as follows: “On the 5th day of November, 1907, during October term the defendant filed in court his signed bill of exceptions as follows;” Then follows the purported bill of exceptions.

This was not sufficient. It is essential that the abstract should show that the bill was filed by a proper order of court duly entered of record. [Clay v. Publishing Co., 200 Mo. l. c. 673.] It is also essential that it should show that the bill was signed by the judge. [Harris v. Wilson, 199 Mo. 412.] As there is no showing that the bill was filed in obedience to any order of the court duly entered upon the records; or that it was signed by the judge it does not comply with the law governing the filing of abstracts. Consequently we have nothing before us but the record proper. This shows that there was a petition stating a good cause of action.

Cause affirmed.

All concur.  