State v. Gill

• Citation: 107 Mo. 44,17 S.W. 758
• Parties: STATE ex rel. KING v. GILL et al., Judges.
• Decision Date: 23 November 1891
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

17 S.W. 758

107 Mo. 44

STATE ex rel. KING v. GILL et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 23, 1891.

APPEAL — JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT — RECORD.

1. Under Const. Mo. 1875, art. 6, § 12, a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the supreme court because of the "amount in dispute," unless the record in the trial court shows that the amount exceeds $2,500.

2. On plaintiff's appeal, the "amount in dispute" is usually ascertained by the prayer for relief; but, where his evidence shows the amount to be less, it controls his pleading in that regard.

3. A general prayer for alimony, to be awarded out of an estate of $250,000, is not a demand for a sum exceeding $2,500.

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

Petition for mandamus to compel defendants, as judges of the Kansas City court of appeals, to transfer a cause to the supreme court. Writ denied.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BARCLAY, J.:

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the transfer of a certain cause to the supreme court. It grows out of the following facts: Mrs. King (now the relator) brought an action in 1889 against her husband in the circuit court of Saline county, and, upon various grounds, prayed a divorce, custody of her minor children, and "that the court adjudge to her, out of the property of her said husband, such support and maintenance for herself and her said four minor children, and such sum for the prosecution of her said suit, and for such time, as the nature of the case and the circumstances of the parties required, and to make such further orders as should be just and proper in the premises." It was also alleged in the petition that the husband was possessed of property of the value of $250,000. The defendant in that action filed an answer, containing a general denial and a plea of condonation; to which there was a general reply. In 1890 a trial of the cause was had in the circuit court, and a final judgment rendered, dismissing Mrs. King's petition. After an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, the plaintiff took an appeal, upon the statutory affidavit, to the Kansas City court of appeals, and filed her exceptions in the usual way. The cause was heard in due course, in that court, both parties appearing, at the October term, 1890, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Thereafter in March, 1891, the plaintiff, Mrs. King, moved for the transfer of the case to the supreme court on the ground that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction of it. That motion was overruled in May, 1891, and then followed the present application here to compel such transfer by means of a writ of mandamus to the defendants to that effect. All other necessary facts will be stated in the opinion.

Saml. Boyd, for relator. J. P. Strother, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts.)

By mandamus the relator seeks to require defendants, as judges of the Kansas City court of appeals, to transfer a cause to this court. They entertained and...