City of St. Louis v. Glennon

• Decision Date: 05 March 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22026.,22026.
• Citation: 229 S.W. 205
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. GLENNON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

229 S.W. 205

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. GLENNON et al.

No. 22026.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 5, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Davis, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the City of St. Louis against John J. Glennon, Archbishop, the Handlan-Buck Manufacturing Company, and others. From a decree confirming a report awarding damages and assessing benefits, the defendant Handlan-Buck Manufacturing Company appeals. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding brought by the city of St. Louis to condemn property for the opening of Twelfth street from Chouteau avenue to Park avenue, under Ordinance No. 29994.

The suit was instituted June 14, 1918, commissioners were appointed July 26, 1918, and on May 31, 1919, the commissioners filed their report awarding damages and assessing benefits. Property of appellant, held under a 20-year lease, with five years to run, was assessed for benefits in the sum of $1,972.50. On June 13, 1919, appellant filed its exceptions to the report of the commissioners, which exceptions were heard by the court and overruled on October 6, 1919. Within four days thereafter, to wit, on October 7, 1919, appellant filed its motion for a rehearing and new trial, which motion was thereafter, to wit, on November 12, 1919, during the same, October, term of court overruled. Thereafter, to wit, on November 29, 1919, an appeal was allowed appellant to this court, and it was given 90 days after the close of the term to file its bill of exceptions and 10 days after the close of the term in which to file its appeal bond. The appeal bond was filed and approved on December 11, 1919, within the time allowed.

Thereafter, to wit, on December 23, 1919, during the next, December, term of court, judgment was rendered confirming the report of the commissioners and the assessment of benefits against the property of appellant. Thereafter, to wit, on January 30, 1920, during the said December term of court, appellant was again allowed an appeal to this court and refiled its appeal bond, which was approved. No motion for a new trial was filed after final judgment was rendered on December 23, 1919. Thereafter, to wit, on October 19, 1920, within the time agreed by stipulation between the parties, appellant filed its bill of exceptions, and the case comes on here for review.

Chouteau Dyer, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Chas. H. Daues and H. A. Hamilton, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

ELDER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Respondent contends that for failure to file its motion for new trial within four days after the final judgment, the appeal should be dismissed.

Our statute, section 1456, Revised Statutes 1919, makes it mandatory that a motion for new trial shall be filed within four days after the trial and during the term at which verdict was rendered. State v. Brown, 206 Mo. 501, 103 S. W. 955; State v. Fawcett, 212 Mo. 729, 111 S. W. 562; City of St. Joseph v. Robison, 125 Mo. 1, 28 S. W. 166; Maloney v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. 106, 26 S. W. 702; Moran v. January, 52 Mo. 523.

In the instant case judgment was rendered on December 23, 1919, at the December term of court, and no motion...