Barrett v. Stoddard County
| Decision Date | 09 October 1917 |
| Parties | JOHN A. BARRETT et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STODDARD COUNTY et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Howell Circuit Court. -- Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.
Writ quashed.
Thomas F. Lane, J. L. Fort and Giboney Houck for plaintiff in error.
Mozley & Woody and Wammack & Welborn for defendant in error.
(1) Every issue on the merits of this case was briefed, argued and submitted to the Springfield Court of Appeals, and its decision and judgment thereon became and was a final adjudication of all such matters, and no other court will interfere therewith. Any other rule of procedure would lead to intolerable chaos. Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 93; McLure v. Bank, 263 Mo. 134; Emmert v Aldridge, 231 Mo. 128; Cantwell v. Johnson, 236 Mo. 603. (2) When the Springfield Court of Appeals (183 S.W 644) remanded this cause to the Circuit Court with directions to enter judgment for $ 7000 as of the date of overruling of the motion for new trial, it was a final determination of the cause, and the only thing the trial court could do under the law was to enter judgment in strict accordance with that direction. Allen v. Choteau, 74 Mo. 56; Bridge Co. v. Stone, 194 Mo. 175; Spratt v. Early, 199 Mo. 491; Smith v. Kiene, 231 Mo. 215; Keaton v Jorndt, 259 Mo. 179; McLure v. Bank, 263 Mo 128. (3) The contention is made that jurisdiction of this cause rests in this court because Stoddard County is a party, and a construction of the revenue laws is involved. Neither of these contentions is tenable. This is purely an action to assess damages on an injunction bond. The record discloses that Stoddard County has no interest in the matter whatever. It is true that the action is ancillary to a proceeding to which, in some sort, the county was a party, and had some interest, and the appeal in the main case did go to the Supreme Court, but when that appeal was determined by this court, the county's connection with the case ceased. It filed no motion to assess damages. The evidence shows it suffered none, in fact, the City Bank having paid it the same interest that the Bank of Essex would have paid, had it been permitted to carry out its contract. The same statement will suffice as to the revenue laws. It seems to us absurd to say that in this simple action to assess damages on an injunction bond, the revenue laws of this State are involved. (4) This court, has no jurisdiction of this proceeding for the reason that on the 7th day of April, 1916, when the judgment was entered in the Howell Circuit Court, in accordance with the mandate of the Springfield Court of Appeals, the amount in controversy, both judgment and interest, was only $ 7432.76.
This case is here upon a writ of error issued June 21, 1916. The purpose of the writ is to secure a review of the record and proceedings in a certain case theretofore pending in the circuit court of Howell County in which a judgment had been entered in compliance with a mandate of the Springfield Court of Appeals.
A chronological resume of all the facts nearly and remotely connected with this case is presented. While much of this is extraneous and cannot be considered in determining the matter at issue, its statement will afford an opportunity for a better understanding of the case than can otherwise be obtained.
A temporary injunction was granted at the instance of plaintiffs by the circuit court of Stoddard County in July, 1907, restraining the treasurer of that county from depositing its funds in the Bank of Essex, which had theretofore been designated as the county depositary, and directing that such funds be deposited in the City Bank of Bloomfield. An injunction bond was given upon the granting of the temporary writ. A change of venue was then taken to Howell County by defendants, where, upon a trial in February 1909, a judgment was rendered for defendants and as a consequence the writ of injunction was dissolved. Defendants thereupon filed a motion for damages on the injunction bond, and before its determination plaintiffs appealed from the ruling of the circuit court on the merits to the Supreme Court, where the judgment of the circuit court of Howell County was affirmed. Thereafter the motion to assess damages on the injunction bond was continued from time to time until December, 1914, when it was tried before a jury and defendants' damages fixed at $ 10,000, and after a remittitur a judgment was rendered by the court for $ 7,000. An appeal therefrom was granted plaintiffs to the Springfield Court of Appeals, where, after a review of all of the facts, the judgment of the trial court was on February 16, 1916, affirmed (183 S.W. 644), and it was ordered that the cause be remanded to the circuit court of Howell County and that it enter a judgment for the sum of $ 7,000 as of the date of the overruling of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial therein. Plaintiffs thereupon filed motions for a rehearing and to transfer the cause to the Supreme Court, both of which were by the Court of Appeals overruled March 11, 1916, and a mandate in conformity with its judgment was transmitted to the circuit court of Howell County. On April 7, 1916, all the parties being present, the circuit court of Howell County, in compliance with the mandate of the Springfield Court of Appeals, entered judgment in favor of the Bank of Essex and against the City Bank of Bloomfield and the sureties on its injunction bond for the sum of $ 7,000. An affidavit for an appeal to the Supreme Court from this judgment was filed by the plaintiffs and an appeal was granted to the Springfield Court of Appeals May 28, 1916. Within the time granted plaintiffs filed their bill of exceptions in said court and on June 16, 1916, dismissed their appeal therein and sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court. In aid of this writ not only the record of the proceedings relative to the entry of the judgment by the circuit court in compliance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals is here submitted, but also the record of the proceedings of a former trial of this case, in which there was a judgment for defendants and upon appeal to the Court of Appeals the same was affirmed, followed by a mandate to the circuit court as above stated. The course pursued by the plaintiffs in error in the preparation of this abstract is not only anomalous but unauthorized. The parties and the issues in the case tried in the circuit court and affirmed upon appeal in the Court of Appeals being the same as in the instant case, the matters determined upon that appeal must be regarded as having been finally determined, and they cannot be galvanized into life as undecided...
To continue reading
Request your trial