Chase Realty Co. v. Dorel Co.

Decision Date10 February 1969
Docket NumberNo. 53004,No. 1,53004,1
Citation437 S.W.2d 65
PartiesThe CHASE REALTY COMPANY, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Appellant, v. DOREL COMPANY, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Earl Bumiller, Registered Agent, and Earl Bumiller and Doris Bumiller, Husband and Wife, Respondents
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Louis Shifrin, Richard H. Ulrich, Shifrin, Treiman, Schermer & Susman, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Edward C. Cody, Klutho & Cody, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

LAURANCE M. HYDE, Special Commissioner.

Plaintiff calls its petition 'a declaratory judgment suit in equity.' The petition asked 'a declaration of the rights of the parties in and to the contracts alleged.' Plaintiff alleged employment as broker to sell real estate and claimed to be entitled to a fee of $18,000.00 as a six per cent commission on an offered price of $300,000.00 for the fee simple title to property for which plaintiff claims it had an exclusive sales contract. Plaintiff now claims to be entitled to a commission of $12,000.00 for sale of a 99-year lease on the same property. Plaintiff claims to be entitled to one or the other, not both. The Court found plaintiff was not entitled to anything and entered judgment for defendants.

Defendants raise the issue of our jurisdiction, claiming there is no actual amount in controversy on this appeal in excess of $15,000.00, because plaintiff asserts conflicting claims. When we look at the 'Points Relied On' in plaintiff's brief we find, except for Point IV, and perhaps VII which has no reference to the amount involved they set out 'only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court.' See Civil Rule 83.05(e), V.A.M.R. Point IV is as follows:

'The exclusive sales contract contained two elements:

'a) The sale of the 99 year leasehold for $200,000.00, subject to the broker's commission.

'b) The sale of the fee simple title for $350,000.00 subject to the broker's commission.

'The sale of the leasehold was actually made. Therefore, from the face of the exclusive sales contract and admission of Defendants-Respondents, the agents are entitled to a 6% commission or $12,000.00 for the sale of the leasehold.'

There is no other point relied on in plaintiff's brief making a claim to any specific amount of commission or stating any definite transaction for which commission of more than $12,000.00 is claimed. Thus a claim for $12,000.00 for commission is the only live issue on this appeal. Concerning issues not briefed, we have ruled: 'And though timely raised in the trial court, if the constitutional question is not briefed nor urged nor relied upon in this court, it will be deemed abandoned, and, when our jurisdiction depends solely upon such question being involved, we will not retain jurisdiction, even where the case was properly sent here on appeal because of the appearance of such question in the record.' Ewing v. Kansas City, 350 Mo. 1071, 169 S.W.2d 897, 900, and cases cited; see also Heuer v. Ulmer, Mo.Sup., 273 S.W.2d 169; Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 1964, pp. 640--649 and cases cited.

An abstract statement in 'Points Relied On' now shown to be related to any action or ruling of the court 'is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ward v. Johnson, 25626
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 24, 1972
    ...court, and does not comply with Rule 83.05(e) (now Rule 84.04(d)). The decisions condemning this practice are myriad. Chase Realty Co. v. Dorel Company, Mo., 437 S.W.2d 65; Scarato v. Hayward, Mo.App., 446 S.W.2d 135; Troyer v. Click, Mo.App., 457 S.W.2d 221; Cases collected Missouri Digest......
  • Langford's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1975
    ...sought to be reviewed or the reasons wherein and why those rulings and actions are claimed to be wrong. E.g., Chase Realty Company v. Dorrel Company, 437 S.W.2d 65, 66(1) (Mo.1969); Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300, 301(3) (Mo.App.1972). The rule envisions particularization of error assignmen......
  • Kerr v. Ehinger Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 1974
    ...mere abstract statements fail to properly isolate and formulate points on appeal are legion. For example see: Chase Realty Company v. Dorel Company, 437 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.1969); Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1972), and Kansas City v. Garza, 493 S.W.2d 659 (Mo.App.1973). The purported p......
  • Troyer v. Click
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1970
    ...actions or rulings of the Court are claimed to be erroneous and * * * why it is contended the Court was wrong.' Chase Realty Company v. Dorel Company, Mo., 437 S.W.2d 65, 66(1). Not only are plaintiff's points bare of any suggestion as to what action of the court is asked to be reviewed or ......
  • 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