Ashbrook v. Willis, No. 33310.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Bohling |
| Citation | 89 S.W.2d 659 |
| Parties | W.R. ASHBROOK v. WILSON WILLIS, Doing Business As BROOKWOOD FARM & DAIRY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 33310. |
v.
WILSON WILLIS, Doing Business As BROOKWOOD FARM & DAIRY COMPANY, Appellant.
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
TRANSFERRED TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS.
Harding, Murphy & Tucker for appellant.
Cowgill & Popham and John F. Cook for respondent.
BOHLING, C.
Action on plaintiff's petition and defendant's counterclaim for damages arising out of a collision between automobiles owned by plaintiff and defendant. The jury returned a $500 verdict for plaintiff and a $500 verdict for defendant. The trial court, upon motion, granted plaintiff a new trial for error in giving defendant's Instruction No. 5, submitting defendant's counterclaim on the "humanitarian" or "last chance" doctrine.
[1] Defendant assigns error in the sustaining of said motion on the ground said instruction was proper and maintains he is entitled to the reinstatement of his judgment against plaintiff. Plaintiff contends the instruction was improper and assigns further error on the part of the trial court in informing the jury that plaintiff had withdrawn his claim for damage to his car, placed at $1056.30 in the petition. Our review of the issues are thus limited under Section 1060, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 1341), and our Rule 18.
This court is one of limited appellate jurisdiction [Stuart v. Stuart, 320 Mo. 486, 487, 8 S.W. (2d) 613 (1)]. The only possible ground for our jurisdiction over this appeal is that the "amount in dispute" exceed $7,500 [Sec. 12, Art. 6, and Secs. 3 and 5, Amend. 1884 of Art. 6, Mo. Const., pp. 108, 118, R.S. 1929; Sec. 1914, R.S. 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 2587]. The issues presented for review are clearly insufficient to vest appellate jurisdiction here.
[2] However, appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the record in the trial court at the time the appeal is granted. [Little River Drainage Dist. v. Houck (en banc), 282 Mo. 458, 460(1), 222 S.W. 384, 385(2) (discussing a constitutional issue); State ex rel. v. Trimble, 326 Mo. 702, 709, 32 S.W. (2d) 760, 762(2) (discussing the "amount
in dispute") Stuart v. Stuart, supra.] The cases hold we determine our appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter for ourselves; unaffected by actions of omission or commission on the part of the litigants. Whenever necessary to preserve the constitutional integrity of this court, we have reserved to ourselves the right to pierce the shell of the pleadings, proofs, record and judgment sufficiently far to determine that our proper jurisdiction is not infringed upon, or improper jurisdiction is not foisted upon us by design, inadvertance or mere colorable — and not real — amounts [State ex rel. v. Reynolds (en banc), 245 Mo. 698, 704(d), 151 S.W. 85, 87(d); Wilson v. Russler (en banc), 162 Mo. 565, 567, 63 S.W. 370; Keleher v. Johnson (en banc), 272 Mo. 699, 701, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Friday, 41257.
...Co., 199 Mo. 455, 458, 97 S.W. 908; Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139, 154(I), 216 S.W. 323, 327[2]; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 228[2], 89 S.W. 2d 659[5]. Taking Exhibit A as a part of the petition (§ 44, supra), the substance of the situation is that the amount in dispute on the Trustees......
-
Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Co., 47001
...therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial on the measure of damages.' This case is unlike Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 89 S.W.2d 659, in which the trial court had granted plaintiff a new trial and the issue on appeal was made by defendant-appellant's contention that his $50......
-
Gipson v. Fisher Bros. Co., 6661.
...Atchison, T. &. S. F. R. Co., 233 Mo. 666, 136 S.W. 304; Culbertson v. Young, 156 Mo. 261, 56 S.W. 893; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 89 S.W.2d 659; Vanderberg v. Kansas City, Mo., Gas Co., 199 Mo. 455, 97 S.W. 908. From the whole record it appears that plaintiff's sole objective, on app......
-
Bearup v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., 38465.
...98 Mo. 246, 247, 11 S.W. 563, May v. Jarvis-Conklin Mtg. Trs. Co., 138 Mo. 447, 449, 40 S.W. 122; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 228, 89 S.W. 2d 659, 660; Vandenberg v. Kansas City, Mo., Gas Co., 199 Mo. 455, 458, 97 S.W. 908, 909; Esmar v. Haeussler, 341 Mo. 33, 34[1], 106 S.W. 2d 412[1]......
-
Simmons v. Friday, 41257.
...Co., 199 Mo. 455, 458, 97 S.W. 908; Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139, 154(I), 216 S.W. 323, 327[2]; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 228[2], 89 S.W. 2d 659[5]. Taking Exhibit A as a part of the petition (§ 44, supra), the substance of the situation is that the amount in dispute on the Trustees......
-
Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Co., 47001
...therefore reverse and remand this case for a new trial on the measure of damages.' This case is unlike Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 89 S.W.2d 659, in which the trial court had granted plaintiff a new trial and the issue on appeal was made by defendant-appellant's contention that his $50......
-
Gipson v. Fisher Bros. Co., 6661.
...Atchison, T. &. S. F. R. Co., 233 Mo. 666, 136 S.W. 304; Culbertson v. Young, 156 Mo. 261, 56 S.W. 893; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 89 S.W.2d 659; Vanderberg v. Kansas City, Mo., Gas Co., 199 Mo. 455, 97 S.W. 908. From the whole record it appears that plaintiff's sole objective, on app......
-
Bearup v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., 38465.
...98 Mo. 246, 247, 11 S.W. 563, May v. Jarvis-Conklin Mtg. Trs. Co., 138 Mo. 447, 449, 40 S.W. 122; Ashbrook v. Willis, 338 Mo. 226, 228, 89 S.W. 2d 659, 660; Vandenberg v. Kansas City, Mo., Gas Co., 199 Mo. 455, 458, 97 S.W. 908, 909; Esmar v. Haeussler, 341 Mo. 33, 34[1], 106 S.W. 2d 412[1]......