Brill v. Meek
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | SCOTT |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 358 |
| Parties | BRILL, Respondent, v. MEEK, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
20 Mo. 358
BRILL, Respondent,
v.
MEEK, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
January Term, 1855.
1. After an appeal has once been granted, the power of the inferior court over the subject is exhausted. If the appeal is dismissed, or if from any cause the party loses the benefit of it, he cannot take another appeal, but must resort to his writ of error.
Appeal from Weston Court of Common Pleas.
A judgment was rendered for Brill below, in November, 1853, and Meek took an appeal to the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed because not prosecuted. In February, 1854, Meek again appeared before the court below, and filed a new bond and prayed another appeal, which was granted.
[20 Mo. 359]
Hall and Vories, for defendant, now moved to dismiss the second appeal, on the ground that only one appeal could be allowed, even within the year; as otherwise the respondent might be harassed by successive appeals, and subjected to great trouble and expense.
Gardenhire, for appellant.
If an appeal is dismissed, the penalty is the payment of costs. This is sufficient to protect the respondent from oppression. This court must be open to the appellant “one year,” and a certain remedy afforded for the injury of which he complains. A dismissed appeal is like a judgment of non-suit.
SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
When an appeal has once been granted, the power over the subject is functus officio and cannot be exercised a second time. This has been the uniform practice. After a party, from any cause, has lost the benefit of his appeal, he is driven to his writ of error.
The appeal is dismissed, Judge Ryland concurring; Judge Leonard not upon the bench.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge, No. 39364.
...561, 247 S.W. 396; Moberly v. Powell, 229 Mo. App. 857, 86 S.W. (2d) 383; State ex rel. McGee v. Owen, 121 S.W. (2d) 765; Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358; Oberkoetter v. Luebbering, 4 Mo. App. 481; State ex rel. Riefling v. Sale, 153 Mo. App. 273, 133 S.W. 119; In re Ermeling's Estate, 131 S.W. (......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
...State ex rel. Powers v. Rassieur, 190 S.W. 915; Burgess v. Donoghue, 90 Mo. 299, 2 S.W. 303; Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513; Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo 358; State ex rel. Manning v. Hughes, 351 Mo. 780, 174 S.W. (2d) 200; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399, 134 S.W. 653. (2) The judgment dismissing relator......
-
State v. Rosser
...therein reached by the court is Schmeer v. Schmeer, 16 Or. 243, 17 P. 864, and the only authority cited in that case is Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358. In the latter case the opinion of the Missouri court is very brief and reads as "When an appeal has once been granted, the power over the subjec......
-
State v. Rosser
...therein reached by the court is Schmeer v. Schmeer, 16 Or. 243, 17 P. 864, and the only authority cited in that case is Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358. In the latter case the opinion of the Missouri court is very brief and reads as follows: "When an appeal has once been granted, the power over t......
-
State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge, No. 39364.
...561, 247 S.W. 396; Moberly v. Powell, 229 Mo. App. 857, 86 S.W. (2d) 383; State ex rel. McGee v. Owen, 121 S.W. (2d) 765; Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358; Oberkoetter v. Luebbering, 4 Mo. App. 481; State ex rel. Riefling v. Sale, 153 Mo. App. 273, 133 S.W. 119; In re Ermeling's Estate, 131 S.W. (......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
...State ex rel. Powers v. Rassieur, 190 S.W. 915; Burgess v. Donoghue, 90 Mo. 299, 2 S.W. 303; Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513; Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo 358; State ex rel. Manning v. Hughes, 351 Mo. 780, 174 S.W. (2d) 200; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399, 134 S.W. 653. (2) The judgment dismissing relator......
-
Niedringhaus v. Wm. F. Niedringhaus Inv. Co., No. 22446.
..."The following, among other decisions of this and the appellate courts of this state, contain similar expressions: Brill v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358; Ladd et al. v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399, 134 S. W. 653; Burgess v. O'Donoghue, 90 Mo. 299, 2 S. W. 303; Finley v. United......
-
Shaw v. Shaw
...35 Mo. 513, 515; Stewart v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400), and the power of the inferior court over the subject is exhausted. Bril v. Meek, 20 Mo. 358. T. F. McDearmon for respondent. (1) “To warrant the destruction of a legal title by decree of a resulting trust, the proof should be of the most co......