Bunner v. Patti
| Decision Date | 07 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 18830.,No. 18829.,18829.,18830. |
| Parties | BUNNER v. PATTI et al. SAME v. GEORGE J. SHAW HAULING CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Brown Harris, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by John V. Bunner against Sebastian Patti, George J. Shaw Hauling Company, and others. From an adverse judgment, Sebastian Patti and others appeal, and from a judgment for George J. Shaw Hauling Company, plaintiff appeals.
Cause transferred to the Supreme Court.
Leo T. Schwartz and Maurice J. O'Sullivan, both of Kansas City, for appellants, Patti and others.
Clif Langsdale and Charles V. Garnett, both of Kansas City, for appellant-respondent Bunner.
Cowgill & Popham, Leo T. Schwartz, and Maurine J. O'Sullivan, all of Kansas City, for respondent George J. Shaw Hauling Co.
SPERRY, Commissioner.
John V. Bunner, who will be referred to as plaintiff, sued Sebastian Patti, Fleisher Engineering & Construction Company, and Ring Construction Company, three separate companies, but, for the sake of brevity, we will refer to the entire group as defendant Patti, and George J. Shaw Hauling Company, which will be known herein as defendant Shaw. Plaintiff sued for $15,000 damages for personal injuries. The cause went to the jury as to both groups of defendants, and the jury found for plaintiff and against defendant Patti in the sum of $10,000, for which amount judgment was rendered. The jury found for defendant Shaw, judgment being rendered accordingly. Defendant Patti filed motions for new trial and in arrest, and plaintiff filed similar motions because of the adverse finding, and judgment rendered thereon, as to defendant Shaw. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a voluntary remittitur on the $10,000 judgment in the amount of $2,500 principal, and interest thereon. The court set aside the judgments theretofore entered, approved the remittitur, entered judgment for plaintiff and against defendant Patti in the amount of $7,500, and entered judgment in favor of defendant Shaw and against plaintiff. The motions for new trial and in arrest were, on the same date, refiled by the respective parties, and were duly overruled by the court, whereupon defendant Patti prayed, and was granted, an appeal to this court, and plaintiff prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, but was granted an appeal to this court. Both appeals were duly docketed herein, under separate numbers, the Patti appeal being docketed here under No. 18829, and plaintiff's appeal is under our docket No. 18830, both appeals having been taken the same day and filed with our clerk on August 14, 1936, and each is accompanied with a short transcript. Thereafter, a stipulation for continuance of case No. 18830 was filed.
On March 15, 1937, the abstract of the record was filed and on the same day, at 4:40 p. m., defendant Patti filed motion challenging our jurisdiction and moving the transfer of the entire record to the Supreme Court. One minute thereafter, plaintiff filed motion to dismiss his appeal from the judgment in favor of defendant Shaw, our docket No. 18830. Defendant Patti urges that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the motion to dismiss No. 18830, nor to take any further step with relation to either case except to transfer both to the Supreme Court under the provisions of section 1915, R.S.Mo. 1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 1915, p. 2589). The motion to transfer has not yet been passed on but was ordered "taken with the case," and, if sustained, of course disposes of both cases so far as this court is concerned.
This is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction, its jurisdiction being bounded by the Constitution. We have no jurisdiction of any cause involving in excess of $7,500. There is but one case on appeal, no matter how many of the parties involved therein prosecute appeals. A cross-appeal, such as is involved here, does not change the rule. Stith v. J. J. Newberry Co., 336 Mo. 467, 79 S.W.(2d) 447, loc. cit. 450; Walsh v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 331 Mo. 118, 52 S.W.(2d) 839, loc. cit. 840; Punch v. Hipolite Co. (Mo. Sup.) 100 S.W.(2d) 878, loc. cit. 880.
The amount involved in plaintiff's cross-appeal in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemonds v. Holmes
...since there was a verdict in favor of Holmes and Young, the controversy between said litigants involves $20,000, citing Bunner v. Patti, Mo.App., 1937, 107 S.W.2d 143 1; and that appellate jurisdiction is not changed because a verdict was secured against codefendants Ramsey and Greenway for......
-
Heuer v. Ulmer, s. 7258
...re Mills' Estate, 349 Mo. 611, 615, 162 S.W.2d 807, 810; Killian v. Brith Sholom Congregation, Mo.App., 154 S.W.2d 387, 392; Bunner v. Patti, Mo.App., 107 S.W.2d 143. If the amount in dispute upon either appeal is such as to vest exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, the en......
-
Sandy Hites Co. v. State Highway Commission
...Walsh v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 331 Mo. 118, 52 S.W.2d 839; Stith v. J. J. Newberry Co., 336 Mo. 467, 79 S.W.2d 447; Bunner v. Patti, Mo.App., 107 S.W.2d 143; Ruehling v. Pickwick Grayhound Lines, Inc., 337 Mo. 196, 85 S.W.2d It is mandatory under the provisions of Section 1915, R.S.Mo......