Allen v. Scharringhausen
| Decision Date | 13 January 1880 |
| Citation | 8 Mo.App. 229 |
| Parties | THOMAS ALLEN, Appellant, v. HENRY SCHARRINGHAUSEN ET AL., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. A justice's jurisdiction must, on appeal, appear from the papers in the case.
2. Courts will not take judicial notice of the locality of the justice's office.
3. Courts will not take judicial notice that a particular number on a certain street is in a given ward or district of a city.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Cause dismissed.
W. R DONALDSON and T. K. SKINKER, for the appellant.
LOUIS A. STEBER and JOHN MCGAFFEY, for the respondents, cited Bast v. Ketchum, 5 Mo.App. 433; O'Fallon v Rodrigues, 6 Mo.App. 576; Haggard v. Railroad Co., 63 Mo. 302.
This was a summary proceeding before a justice to recover rent or possession, under the act concerning landlords and tenants. The premises are described in the affidavit as being in the Third District of the city of St. Louis, at the intersection of Russell and Jefferson Avenues, and in block 67 of Allen's Addition. But there is nothing in any paper in the case to show that the justice was a justice in that ward or district, or in any adjoining ward or district. The summons directs the defendants to appear before the justice at his office in St. Louis Township, and is signed, " Charles Picker, Justice of the Peace, No. 2023 Carondelet Ave." If this shows that 2023 Carondelet Avenue was the proper office of the justice, we have no judicial knowledge that that locality is in the district within which this action should have been brought, or that Justice Picker was then a justice of such a district. The essential jurisdictional facts do not appear, and cannot be presumed. Judgment below was for defendant. It does not appear that any motion to dismiss was made in the Circuit Court, or that the attention of that court was called to the want of jurisdiction in the justice. But this is immaterial. The objection of want of jurisdiction is one that is not waived. It is urged here; and it follows, from what has been said, that the cause must be dismissed. Bast v. Ketchum, 5 Mo.App. 433; Dillard v. Railroad Co., 58 Mo. 69.
The proceeding is dismissed.
Judge LEWIS is absent; Judge HAYDEN concurs.
On motion for a rehearing, BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
We think it well to say, in overruling this motion, that this case was decided upon the theory that the amended law of 1877 (Acts, p. 284; Rev. Stats., sect. 3098) could only mean that the statement must be filed in the township in which the property was situated, if outside of St. Louis; but if in St Louis, then in one of the fourteen justices' election-districts in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial