Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh

• Decision Date: 04 March 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 217,97 Mo. 287
• Parties: ANCHOR MILLING CO. v. WALSH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 217

97 Mo. 287

ANCHOR MILLING CO. v. WALSH.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 4, 1889.

APPEAL — JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.

Where a plaintiff in an action tried in the city of St. Louis prays judgment for $2,800, but his real demand, as gathered from the record, is for a sum less than $2,500, the case falls properly within the jurisdiction of the St. Louis court of appeals; Const. Mo. art. 6, § 12; limiting the jurisdiction of the supreme court, on appeal from such court, to cases where the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $2,500.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

G. M. Stewart, for appellant. A. R. Taylor and A. A. Paxon, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J.

In this case the petition asserts, in substance, that plaintiff, as operator of a flour-mill, engaged the defendant to do the necessary hauling for it at a stipulated price per hundred pounds, payable weekly; that settlements were made from time to time on bills presented as correct by defendant, and believed by plaintiff to be so, etc., but that plaintiff discovered that they were not correct; that defendant, through mistake or fraud, had been thus overpaid $2,800, which had been demanded, etc., and for which judgment is asked. The answer is a general denial. In the circuit court there was a trial, and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. At the hearing, plaintiff's evidence disclosed that its actual claim was for alleged errors or overpayments between July 1, 1883, and the close of dealings between the parties at the end of that year. The total amount thereof was $1,870.01, according to plaintiff's own theory, as shown by its books and accounts. The instruction offered on plaintiff's behalf, as applied to the evidence, indicates that the real demand at the date of trial (December 24, 1885) did not exceed that sum, with 6 per cent interest thereon from the time the action was begun, (January 12, 1884.) Its aggregate claim, therefore, was for less than $2,500 when the judgment appealed from was rendered.

In this state of the facts, it is our duty to first determine whether the case comes within our jurisdiction. We cannot properly entertain it unless the "amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $2,500." Const. 1875, art. 6, § 12. Here the plaintiff prayed judgment for $2,800. In many cases the prayer of the petition is a proper guide to determine the amount in dispute on plaintiff's appeal, but it is not always the only...