Berry v. Crouse
| Decision Date | 17 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31437,31437 |
| Citation | 370 S.W.2d 724 |
| Parties | Paul W. BERRY and Norma F. Berry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Reginald CROUSE and Dorothy B. Crouse, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Tenney, Dahman & Smith, Edward H. Tenney, J., Robert L. Smith, St. Louis, for appellants.
Gray & Jeans, Charles E. Gray, St. Louis, for respondents.
BRADY, Commissioner.
This is an action to recover the payments made upon a farm which the plaintiffs alleged they purchased from the defendants under an instrument which they contend to be a contract of sale. A jury being waived, trial was to the court which entered judgment for the defendants on August 8, 1962. This appeal followed.
Plaintiffs alleged that they paid the defendants a total of $14,350.00 at different times during 1956 and 1957; that in December 1957 the defendants notified the plaintiffs that they were in default and thereatened eviction proceedings whereupon plaintiffs demanded a return of the payments made. The prayer of the petition was for '* * * judgment against defendants in the sum of $14,350.00, together with interest thereon from January 1, 1958, together with their costs herein.' The defendants denied that this instrument was a contract of sale and contended that the rights of the parties were governed by another instrument of even date and executed by the same parties which the defendants contend is a 'Farm Lease.' Under the lease agreement as it is construed by the defendants, the plaintiffs were granted an option to purchase the property providing they complied with the rental and other provisions. In the event of any default as to any of the provisions of this 'Farm Lease,' all the payments made were to be retained by the defendants. The defendants contend the plaintiffs failed to pay the rental installments as required by this agreement and therefore the payments need not be refunded.
This court does not have jurisdiction of appeals in cases where the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs exceeds the sum of $15,000.00 Art. 5, Secs. 3 and 13, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.; Sec. 477.040, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. When interest is considered in determining the jurisdictional amount, only that interest prior to the date of judgment is to be added to the principal. Beckemeir v. Baessler, et al., Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 511, and cases therein cited. In the instant case the date of demand is stated in the petition as January 1, 1958 and the date of judgment appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Terrell
... ... Only interest earned prior to judgment date and the principal are computed to determine the jurisdictional amount in dispute on appeal. Berry v. Crouse, Mo.App., 370 S.W.2d 724, 725(1, 2); Beckemeier v. Baessler, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 511, 512. Our calculations, on this basis, indicate the ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Meyer
...the total amount of the certificates in question, including interest to the date of judgment, exceeds the sum of $15,000. Berry v. Crouse, Mo.App., 370 S.W.2d 724, and case Amanda Berndt, spinster and seamstress, lived in a large house in Boonville, took in transient roomers, and by hard wo......
-
Berry v. Crouse
...the Court of Appeals concluded that the amount in controversy exceeded $15,000 and transferred the appeal to this court. Berry v. Crouse, Mo.App., 370 S.W.2d 724. In February, 1956, the appellants sold a 40-acre farm owned by them in St. Louis County, Missouri. Interested in acquiring anoth......
-
Young v. Knell
...Article 5, Sections 3 and 13, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.; Section 477.040, V.A.M.S., as amended, Laws of 1959; Berry v. Crouse, Mo.App., 370 S.W.2d 724. Flo Young, a spinster, and her mother Ella F. Young, lived together in Nevada, Missouri, until the death of the mother in 19......