Chiles v. School District of Buckner
| Decision Date | 06 March 1905 |
| Citation | 85 S.W. 880,111 Mo.App. 52 |
| Parties | JOEL F. CHILES, Defendant in Error, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF BUCKNER, Plaintiff in Error |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Peak & Strother for plaintiff in error.
Paxton & Rose for defendant in error.
On November 23, 1903, an opinion was handed down in this case by this court wherein it was directed that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed and remanded and that the circuit court "give judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in his petition." On the 14th day of December, 1903, the said court in obedience to said directions entered up judgment against defendants for the sum of $ 566.85, including interest and costs, to bear ten per cent interest, it being the rate of interest borne by said judgment. The judgment so entered was in strict accordance with the directions of this court. On the 9th day of January, 1904, the defendant sued out a writ of error from the Supreme Court. On the 2d day of June, following, on motion of defendant in error the Supreme Court ordered that the cause be certified to this court for want of jurisdiction in said court, which was accordingly done. On July 15, 1904, the defendant in error filed in this court a motion to dismiss or affirm the judgment of the circuit court, and to award damages not exceeding ten per cent upon the original judgment. The plaintiff in error does not deny that defendant in error is not entitled to an affirmance of the judgment on his motion, but insists that to impose the penalty asked would be a hardship.
There can be no doubt but what the action of the plaintiff in error in suing out this writ was not justified by the record. The rule announced by the Supreme Court in such cases is that "where a case is remanded by us with directions for further proceedings, the case does not occupy the same status as if it had been simply reversed and remanded, but that where special directions have been given it is out of the power of the lower court to do anything beyond or not embraced in the specific directions." [Rees v. McDaniel, 131 Mo. 681, 33 S.W. 178.] And a similar ruling was made in Tourville v. Railway, 148 Mo. 614, in Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 64, and in Young v. Thrasher, 123 Mo. 308, 27 S.W. 326.
Ordinarily damages should be imposed upon a party who prosecutes a writ of error or appeal without...
To continue reading
Request your trial