
    J. D. Hostetter, Respondent, v. Luke M. Emerson, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    January 21, 1896.
    Practice, Appellate: requisites oe abstract. When an appeal is taken by the filing of a certified copy of the entry of the judgment and of the order allowing the appeal, and the abstract of the appellant fails to show that a bill of exceptions was filed, or that a motion for new trial was made, only the record proper is presented for review.
    
      Appeal from the Pike Circuit Cowi. — Hon. Reuben F. Roy, Judge.
    Aeeiemed.
    
      Charles M. Napton for appellant.
    
      J. D. Hostetter for respondent.
   Bond, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant before a justice for a balance of $250, claimed to be due on account of legal services. The case was tried before a justice and upon appeal in the circuit court before the judge, who gave judgment for plaintiff for $209.75, from which defendant took an appeal to this court by filing a certified copy of judgment and the allowance of the appeal.

In the abstract filed in this court there is neither a statement of the filing of a bill of exceptions in the lower court, nor that a motion for new trial was made and overruled. It is obvious, therefore, that there is nothing before us for review except the record proper, of which appellant does not complain. Mason v. Pennington., 53 Mo. App. 118; Wesby v. Bowers, 58 Mo. App. 419. The record proper discloses a statement of a cause of action and the rendition of a valid judgment, which will be affirmed.

All concur.  