Bloyd v. Hartman

Citation223 S.W. 676
Decision Date24 July 1920
Docket NumberNo. 15749.,15749.
PartiesBLOYD v. HARTMAN
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

E. Scofield and E. R. McKee, both of Memphis, for plaintiff in error.

J. E. Luther and J. M. Jayne, both of Memphis, for defendant in error,

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This is a writ of error sued out from the judgment of the circuit court of Scotland County, affirming the order of the Probate Court, authorizing a sale of real estate. Originally the cause was appealed to our court but while pending here the appeal was dismissed by the appellant and a writ of error sued out.

As the writ was sued out within a year from the rendition of the judgment in the case, it was applied for and granted within due time. (See section 2056, Revised Statutes 1909.)

In Hill v. Keller, 157 Mo. App. 710, loc. cit. 718, 139 S. W. 523, it is held that when an appeal has been dismissed by an appellate court, a writ of error may be sued out within one year after the rendition of the judgment by the trial court. The fact that the appeal previously taken had been dismissed by appellant, now plaintiff in error, in no manner concludes the right to a writ of error.

But it is objected that as an order for sale of real estate is not a final judgment, no writ of error lies, Fenix v. Fenix's Adm'r, 80 Mo. 27, being relied on. It is true no writ of error lies to the Probate Court, put the statute, section 289, R. S. 1909, expressly provides for an appeal on an order for the sale of real estate. This carries the order into the circuit court. When that court passes on it, its judgment is a final judgment from which a writ of error lies. Section 2054, R. S. 1909, specifically provides for the issue of writs of error "upon any final judgment or decision of any circuit court," and declares them "writs of right, and shall issue of course, out of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals," etc.

In Gale v. Michie, 47 Mo. 326, it is held that where the overruling of a motion is a final and complete disposition of the subject-matter of a cause in that court, the action of the court may be reviewed. See also Tutt v. Boyer, 51 Mo. 425.

Turning to the action of the circuit court in approving the application of the administrator for an order of sale of the real estate, we are unable to agree to that approval. It appears that 84 acres of land belonging to the estate were in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Nettleton Bank v. Estate of McGauhey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1928
    ...App. 557; Redman v. Adams, 88 Mo. App. 534; Hill v. Taylor, 99 Mo. App. 524; In re Wood Estate, 138 Mo. App. 258, 120 S.W. 635; Bloyd v. Hartman, 223 S.W. 676. But there are two decisions in which the question of jurisdiction was raised and expressly determined. The first, Swan v. Thompson,......
  • Nettleton Bank v. McGauhey's Estate
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1928
    ...Mo.App. 557; Redman v. Adams, 88 Mo.App. 534; Hill v. Taylor, 99 Mo.App. 524; In re Wood Estate, 138 Mo.App. 258, 120 S.W. 635; Bloyd v. Hartman, 223 S.W. 676. there are two decisions in which the question of jurisdiction was raised and expressly determined. The first, Swan v. Thompson, 36 ......
  • Studer v. Harlan
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 1937
    ... ... Studor v. Harlan, to be attached to brief. Rude v ... Harvey, 83 Mo. 188; Ridings v. Hamilton Savings ... Bank, 281 Mo. l. c. 297-298; Bloyd v. Hartman, ... 223 S.W. 676; Shepperd v. Fisher, 206 Mo. 208; ... Section 142, Revised Statutes Missouri 1929; 18 Corpus Juris, ... page 944, ... ...
  • Toomey v. Wells
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Febrero 1926
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT