Cole v. Norton

• Decision Date: 21 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 14733.,14733.
• Citation: 251 S.W. 723
• Parties: COLE v. NORTON et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

251 S.W. 723

COLE v. NORTON et al.

No. 14733.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 21, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Charles R. Pence, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Lee R. Cole against T. Frank Norton and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

McCune, Caldwell & Downing, of Kansas City, for appellants.

Clif Langsdale, of Kansas City, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, and defendants have appealed.

This suit was begun in the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., at Kansas City, on May 4, 1920. On March 25, 1921, the cause was assigned to division 6. On June 18, 1921, the judge of division 6 made the following order: "Now on this day by agreement of judges, this cause is transferred to 'division 2 for trial." On October 17, 1921, the judge of division 6 made an order as follows: "Now on this day this cause is by the court returned to the general docket." On the same day the assignment division of the court made an order which purports to assign the cause to division 3, where the cause was tried, resulting in the judgment.

It is insisted by the defendants that division 3 had no jurisdiction to try the cause and that the order made on October 17, 1921, by the judge of division 3, purporting to transfer the cause to the general docket and the order made by the assignment division on said day purporting to transfer the cause to division 3 were nullities. We think that this contention is well taken.: It is held that each judge of the various divisions of the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., at Kansas City, holds court for the trial of such causes as are assigned to him as separately and distinctly from the circuit court held by .any of the other judges as he does from the circuit court held in any other circuit in the state. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Drennon (Mo. App.) 208 S. W. 474, 475; Voullaire v. Voullaire, 45 Mo. 607; Haehl v. Wabash Ry. Co., 119 Mo. 325, 337, 24 S. W. 737; Goddard to Use v. Delany, 181 Mo. 564, 581, SO S. W. 886; State ex rel. v. Eggers, 152 Mo. 485, 54 S. W. 498; State ex rel. v. Allen, 235 Mo. 298, 304, 138 S. W. 339; In re Ward Parkway, 188 Mo. App. 567, 578, 176 S. W. 529: State ex rel. v. Bird, 199 Mo. App. 76, 202 S. W. 436; Hargadine-McKittrick D. G. Co. v. Garesche (Mo. Sup.) 227 S. W. 824; Meierhoffer v. Hansell. (Mo. Sup.) 243 S. W. 131. The order of June 18th by the judge of division 6 fully transferred the cause to division 2, and thereafter none but the latter division, so long as the case remained therein, had any jurisdiction to make any order in the cause. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Drennon, supra, and cases therein cited. It is quite apparent that this cause was pending in division 2 at the time it was tried in division 3. This being true, division 6 had no jurisdiction to transfer the cause on October 17, 1921, to the assignment division nor that division to division No. 3.

When this case was transferred by division 6 to division 2, the latter, as before stated, had jurisdiction so long as the cause remained therein, and jurisdiction could not have been conferred upon division 3 even by consent of the parties. While division 3 had jurisdiction of this class of cases, it had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the cause. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Drennon, supra; In re Drainage District Nabor, 256 Mo. 163, 165 S. W. 340; St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 Mo. 262, 162 S. W. 596; State v. Bulling, 100 Mo. 87, 12 S. W. 356; Brown v. Woody, 64 Mo. 547; State ex rel. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538; Railroad v. Schweitzer, 246 Mo. 122, 151 S. W. 128; In re Bledsoe Hill, 222 Mo. 604, 609, 120 S. W. 1184.

However, it is contended that by reason of the fact that the order made by the judge of division 6 of June 18, 1921, recites that the cause was transferred to division 2 "by agreement of judges" the order was null and void for the reason that there is nothing in the record to show that division 6 could transfer a cause by "agreement of...