Freeman v. Lavenue
Citation | 72 S.W. 1085,99 Mo.App. 173 |
Parties | GEORGE W. FREEMAN, Respondent, v. J. L. LAVENUE, Appellant |
Decision Date | 03 March 1903 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court.--Hon. Argus Cox, Judge.
Plaintiff brought suit in the Wright Circuit Court in 1899, in replevin, to recover of the defendant the possession of a stock of drugs, medicines and paints. The record does not show whether or not the merchandise was delivered to plaintiff under the writ. At the March term, 1899, of the Wright Circuit Court, the cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, who, after hearing the evidence, rendered the following judgment (omitting caption):
On June 24, 1899, at an adjourned term of the March, 1899, term of the Wright Circuit Court, an order was made by the court appointing a receiver in the partition suit mentioned in the foregoing judgment. The receiver took possession of the merchandise involved in the replevin suit and administered it under the order of the court. At the September term, 1899 the partition and replevin suits were, by order of the court consolidated. At the March term, 1900, a change of venue of the cause was, on the application of the defendant, awarded to the Greene Circuit Court.
The cause was filed in the Greene Circuit Court, August 16, 1900. Defendant filed his answer in that court on September 12, 1900. An interlocutory judgment was rendered and a referee appointed by the Greene Circuit Court, November 23, 1900. The referee made his report to the Greene Circuit Court on November 28, 1900, and that court rendered a final judgment in the cause December 22, 1900, from which no appeal was taken and to which no exceptions were saved.
On April 2, 1902, the defendant filed his motion in the Wright Circuit Court for permission to introduce evidence of the value of the property replevied with a view of having his damages assessed. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant's motion. The court sustained the motion to dismiss defendant's motion for leave to introduce evidence, etc., from which ruling of the court defendant duly appealed to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
L. O Nieder and Thos. H. Musick for appellant.
The court having found that plaintiff and defendant were joint owners of the property and that plaintiff was not entitled to the sole and exclusive possession of said property, what was the further duty of the court? This is answered by sections 4473, 4474, 4475, Revised Statutes 1899, in imperative language. Berghoff v. Heckwolf, 26 Mo. 511; Ranney v. Thomas et al. , 45 Mo. 111; Rosentreter v. Brady, 63 Mo.App. 398; Ingalls v. Ferguson, 138 Mo. 358.
F. M. Mansfield for respondent.
(1) There was no error in the court's refusal to entertain the motion of defendant for permission to offer evidence as to the value of the goods. The two cases had, without objections, been consolidated, and the transfer of the cause by change of venue carried with it the whole cause, and all issues belonging thereto, to the circuit court of Greene county, and divested the Wright Circuit Court of all jurisdiction over it. Ex parte Haley, 99 Mo. 150; State v. Brumley, 53...
To continue reading
Request your trial