Ætna Ins. Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1908
• Citation: 132 Mo. App. 608,112 S.W. 31
• Parties: ÆTNA INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., et al. v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

112 S.W. 31

132 Mo. App. 608

ÆTNA INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., et al. v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 29, 1908.

Rehearing Denied July 15, 1908.

APPEAL AND ERROR—MANDATE AND PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURT.

Where a cause was remanded with directions to enter judgment on the verdict theretofore rendered for plaintiffs, all that the lower court could do was to obey directions, and it had no power to consider questions thereafter raised by defendant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Hermann Brumback, Judge.

Action by the Ætna Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., and others, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. In obedience to a mandate of the Court of Appeals on a former appeal in the same case (123 Mo. App. 513, 100 S. W. 569), the court entered a judgment as directed on the verdict theretofore rendered for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Elijah Robinson, for appellant. Ed E. Yates and M. A. Fyke, for respondents.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This case was before this court once before on appeal. At the former trial the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $2,500. The defendant in due time filed a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment. Both motions were submitted to the court, and the motion for new trial was sustained. On the motion in arrest the court made the following order: "And the court further finds that the motion in arrest of judgment filed herein by the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was taken up for argument and submission at the same time as said motion for new trial, but that, although requested by the court, by statement or argument in favor thereof, to give the reasons upon which said motion was founded, the said defendant failed to do so, whereupon the court finds that said motion was abandoned by said defendant, and thereupon the court of its own motion strikes said motion from the files of this court as so abandoned, to which ruling of the court the defendant excepts." The plaintiff appealed from the action of the court setting aside the verdict of the jury. The cause was heard and determined by the court and the action of the circuit court in setting aside said verdict was reversed, and the cause was remanded, "with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict as rendered." See Insurance Co. v. Railway Co., 123 Mo. App. 513, 100 S. W. 569. In obedience to the mandate of this court the circuit court entered a judgment as directed on the...