City of Doniphan v. Cantley

• Decision Date: 03 June 1932
• Docket Number: 31808
• Parties: City of Doniphan, Appellant, v. S. L. Cantley, Commissioner of Finance of the State of Missouri and the Ripley County Bank
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 S.W.2d 658

330 Mo. 639

City of Doniphan, Appellant, v. S. L. Cantley, Commissioner of Finance of the State of Missouri and the Ripley County Bank

No. 31808

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 3, 1932

Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court; Hon. Robert I. Cope Judge.

Transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Fulbright & Sheppard for appellant.

Eugene L. McGee for respondents.

OPINION

Ragland J.

For a statement of the facts we quote from appellant's abstract of the record as follows:

"This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application, under the statute, by the City of Doniphan, a city of the fourth class, incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri, with respondent, S. L. Cantley, Commissioner of Finance of the State of Missouri, in charge of the Ripley County Bank, a banking corporation, which failed on the 20th day of November, 1930, and was placed in the hands of the said Finance Commissioner for liquidation. The application asked to have the claim (for $ 9,258.60) allowed by the said Finance Commissioner as a preferred claim. The claim was filed with Eugene L. McGee, Special Deputy Finance Commissioner, in actual charge of the liquidation of the said bank, on the 18th day of April, 1931, . . .

"The claim was allowed (on May 26, 1931) as a common or ordinary claim only by the Special Deputy Finance Commissioner and disallowed as a preferred claim, and the matter was lodged in the Circuit Court of Ripley County, Missouri, under the statute, and at the June term, 1931. . . .

"The court heard the claim . . . and took it under advisement until the regular November term of said court, 1931. At the regular November term of said court, and on the 20th day of November, 1931, rendered its judgment disallowing said claim as a preferred claim but allowing it as an ordinary or common claim."

From such judgment the City of Doniphan prosecutes this appeal.

The first question to challenge attention on this record is one of appellate jurisdiction. The relation of the State Commissioner of Finance to the controversy is not such to confer jurisdiction on this court. [Bank of Darlington v Atwood, 325 Mo. 123, 27 S.W.2d 1029.] Indeed, the record suggests but one possible ground, namely, that the amount in dispute exceeds $ 7500. But what is the amount in dispute? Clearly the difference between the amount that can be realized by the city of Doniphan on the claim as allowed and the...