Coghlan v. Trumbo

• Decision Date: 08 June 1943
• Docket Number: No. 26354.,26354.
• Citation: Coghlan v. Trumbo, 171 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. App. 1943)
• Parties: COGHLAN v. TRUMBO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

171 S.W.2d 794

COGHLAN v.TRUMBO.

No. 26354.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 8, 1943.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James F. Nangle, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by William Coghlan against William H. Trumbo for personal injuries allegedly sustained in automobile collision.From an insufficient judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Case transferred to the Supreme Court.

Everett Hullverson, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Wilbur C. Schwartz and Morton K. Lange, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, Commissioner.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of a collision between his automobile and an automobile driven by defendant.

The prayer was for damages in the aggregate amount of $15,000, of which a special item of $200 was voluntarily abandoned at the trial, thereby reducing the actual claim to $14,800, even though there was no corresponding amendment made to the petition.The verdict returned was in favor of plaintiff for $250.Being dissatisfied with the amount of the verdict, plaintiff moved for a new trial upon the ground of its inadequacy.The motion was overruled by the court; and following the entry of judgment in conformity with the verdict, plaintiff filed his affidavit for appeal, and was thereupon allowed an appeal to this court.

While neither party challenges our jurisdiction, it is none the less our duty to take notice of the question, since jurisdiction of the subject matter can neither be waived nor conferred by consent, and if we are without jurisdiction over the appeal, any decision we might render on the merits would be void and of no effect.Town of Canton v. Moberly, 340 Mo. 610, 101 S.W. 2d 722.

The issue being one of the alleged inadequacy of the verdict, the question determinative of our jurisdiction is whether it affirmatively appears from the record that the "amount in dispute" exceeds the sum of $7,500, which marks the pecuniary limit of our jurisdiction under Section 2078, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 2078.If so, then exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court, Const. art. 6, sec. 12;Const.Amend.1884, sec. 5, Mo.R.S.A. and it becomes our duty to transfer the case to the Supreme Court where jurisdiction lies.Sec. 2079, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 2079.

Both reason and precedent dictate that where the plaintiff, being dissatisfied, appeals from a judgment in his own favor, the "amount in dispute" for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction is the difference between the amount claimed or sued for and the amount recovered at the trial.Dowd v. Westinghouse...