City of Marionville v. Frazier
| Decision Date | 11 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 7013,7013 |
| Citation | 242 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | CITY OF MARIONVILLE v. FRAZIER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William A. Ratican, Jr., Aurora, Clarence O. Woolsey, Springfield, Joe C. Crain, Ozark, for appellants.
Theodore Beezley, Springfield, Gordon J. Massey, Ozark, for respondent.
Appellants (defendants below) appeal from an order of the circuit court permitting respondent (plaintiff below) to dismiss its cause of action.
This was a condemnation proceeding. The City of Marionville, in a petition, filed in Lawrence County, sought to condemn an easement in a stream of water for the purpose of permitting effluent from its sewage system and disposal plant to flow into it. Defendants below filed a motion to strike out certain parts of the petition, which was overruled. Commissioners were appointed to assess the damages. After qualifying, they made their appraisement of damages and reported to the circuit court, assessing the damage of each of the defendants at $1. To this report the defendants filed exceptions upon the ground that the damages awarded were inadequate, unreasonable and insufficient to compensate the defendants for their respective interests in the stream. Nothing further was done until the plaintiff filed an application for a change of venue. This application was sustained and the case was sent to Christian County where, on the 26th day of January, 1951, the plaintiff, ore tenus, moved the court to dismiss 'its petition and action in condemnation * * *.' This motion was sustained 'for the reason that the plaintiff could not, under its charter powers, condemn a stream of water, * * *.' From this order, defendants have appealed.
The right to appeal is purely statutory, there being no such right at common law. Mo.Digest, Appeal and Error, k1.
Our statute, Sec. 512.020, Mo.R.S.1949, provides that any party to a suit 'aggrieved' by any judgment, may, under certain circumstances, appeal. But it has been held that where a suit is dismissed by the plaintiff, the defendant is not 'aggrieved' within the meaning of the statute, and is not entitled to appeal. McIlvain v. Kavorinos, 358 Mo. 1153, en banc, 219 S.W.2d 349; McIlvain v. Kavorinos, Mo.App., 212 S.W.2d 85; McCormack et al. v. Dunn, 232 Mo.App. 371, 106 S.W.2d 933; Fenton v. Thompson, 352 Mo. 199, 176 S.W.2d 456; McClain v. Kansas City Bridge Co., 338 Mo. 7, 88 S.W.2d 1019; Lines Music Co. v. Holt, Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 92.
However, an appeal to this court would avail defendants nothing because a plaintiff has the right to dismiss its cause of action at any time before the same is finally submitted to the court or jury. Section 510.130, Mo.R.S.1949; Stith v. J. J. Newberry Co. et al., 336 Mo. 467, 79 S.W.2d 447; Sharp v. Stiles et...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Alcorn, 47105.
...her maintenance and support did not, under the circumstances, constitute a valid judgment for alimony or authorize the executions * * *" 242 S.W.2d 737. The bankrupt, himself, has listed the obligation upon Schedule A-3 as a: "* * * written contract to pay said creditor the sum of $50.00 pe......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Lynch
...he is not aggrieved within the meaning of Sec. 512.020. McIlvain v. Kavorinos, 358 Mo. 1153, 219 S.W.2d 349, 353; City of Marionville v. Frazier, Mo.App., 242 S.W.2d 737, 738. In the circumstances of record defendants are not necessary parties to the condemnation action and such damages as ......
-
Stubblefield v. Seals
...this statutory law is not reviewable upon appeal. Piatt v. Heim & Overly Realty Co., 342 Mo. 772, 117 S.W.2d 327; City of Marionville v. Frazier, Mo.App., 242 S.W.2d 737; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Lynch, Mo.Sup., 297 S.W.2d 400. It has also been properly held that the defend......