Bowman v. Strother

• Decision Date: 23 May 1910
• Citation: 128 S.W. 848,144 Mo.App. 100
• Parties: J. W. BOWMAN, Defendant in Error, v. BEN S. STROTHER, Plaintiff in Error
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

128 S.W. 848

144 Mo.App. 100

J. W. BOWMAN, Defendant in Error, v. BEN S. STROTHER, Plaintiff in Error

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 23, 1910

144 Mo.App. 100 at 103.

Original Opinion of May 23, 1910, Reported at: 144 Mo.App. 100.

Motion overruled.

OPINION

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Per Curiam.--

It is stated in the foregoing opinion that nothing is alleged in the pleadings as to bankruptcy proceedings.Our attention is now called to the fact that an amended answer does contain this statement: "Defendant has been adjudged a bankrupt in the Federal Court but not yet discharged."It only appears in the answer of one of the defendants and is an isolated sentence, disconnected from anything preceding or succeeding it.It could not in any way affect our conclusion in the case.The record shows that the bankruptcy proceedings were instituted after this action was begun, and that defendant was refused a discharge.Something was said about a motion to set this refusal aside, but nothing of that kind was shown at the trial.

But defendant asks us to certify the case to the Supreme Court because of this.It is said that "an Act of Congress is involved," and that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction.Our jurisdiction does not depend upon whether the construction of an Act of Congress"is involved " It is only where the "validity" of an Act of Congress"is drawn in question."No one in this case has challenged the validity of an Act of Congress.[Live Stock Com. Co. v. Ry. Co.,157 Mo. 518, 57 S.W. 1070;Carlisle v. Ry. Co.,168 Mo 652;Vaughn v. Ry. Co.,145 Mo. 57;Lail v. P. Ex. Co.,81 Mo.App. 232.]

But aside from the...