Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Co., 45329

Decision Date12 July 1956
Docket NumberNo. 45329,No. 1,45329,1
Citation292 S.W.2d 573
PartiesW. C. CROW (Employee), Appellant, v. MISSOURI IMPLEMENT TRACTOR COMPANY and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company (Employer and Insurer), Respondents
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Joslyn & Joslyn, L. D. Joslyn, T. B. Russell, Charleston, for appellant.

Hyde & Purcell, George R. Wilhoit, Jr., Poplar Bluff, for respondents.

VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.

This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The appeal is by the employee from the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission, Division of Workmen's Compensation, in favor of the employer and insurer. The claim for compensation was instituted by W. C. Crow, employee of the Missouri Implement Tractor Company of Charleston. The employer was a dealer in farming implements; and employee was foreman of employer's shop. Employee suffered a coronary occlusion while assisting in adjusting a farm implement for employer in employer's shop.

The Commission, in making its final award denying compensation, found 'from all the evidence that the incident or events that occurred on August 21, 1954, while the employee was working for said employer, subjected employee to an abnormal strain or exertion, which we find caused the employee to sustain an acute coronary occlusion or thrombosis. We further find that as the result of said coronary attack he is permanently and totally disabled, for which he would be entitled to 300 weeks of compensation at the rate of $35 per week, medical aid in the total sum of $804.45, and $16.25 per week after the 300-weeks period for the remainder of his life, provided that he did sustain an accident on August 21, 1954, arising out of and in the course of his employment * * *. We further find from all the evidence that this employee, W. C. Crow, sustained an abnormal strain while holding up the elevator to an International two-row Corn Picker, Model No. 2-ME. We further find that this abnormal strain was not preceded or accompanied by any unusal or unexpected occurrence and, therefore, was not an accident as the same is defined by the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 287.010 et seq. RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and judicial decisions of said definition. * * * Compensation, therefore, must be and the same is hereby denied.'

Appellant has stated that this court has appellate jurisdiction of this case on the ground of the 'amount in dispute'. Art. V, Sec. 3, Const. V.A.M.S. Respondents, employer and insurer, have not questioned appellant's jurisdictional statement; however, since this court's appellate jurisdiction is not general, but specifically limited by out Constitution, it is our duty to determine in each case whether this court has jurisdiction of the appeal, although this court's jurisdiction has not been questioned. In this case, if this court does have appellate jurisdiction it is because of the amount in dispute; but this court is not warranted in assuming jurisdiction simply because the amount in dispute might fortuitously or by mere chance exceed $7,500. It has been written that we are on firmer ground 'in holding, as we do, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court, on the ground of the amount in dispute, attaches when, and only when, the record of the trial court affirmatively shows that there is involved in the controversy, independent of all contingencies, an amount exceeding $7,500, exclusive of costs.' Stuart v. Stuart, 320 Mo. 486, 8 S.W.2d 613, 614; Hardt v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 340 Mo. 721, 102 S.W.2d 592; Scannell v. Fulton Iron Works Co., Mo.Sup., 289 S.W.2d 122, and cases therein cited.

It will be seen that if the award of Commission in favor of employer and insurer were reversed and an award were made in favor of employee in the weekly amount of $35 for 300 weeks, and for medical aid in the total sum of $804.45, as well as for $16.25 per week after the 300-week period...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Garrison v. Campbell '66' Exp., Inc., 7584
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1956
    ...it cannot be said with certainty that the amount in dispute, independent of all contingencies, exceeds that sum. Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Company, Mo., 292 S.W.2d 573; Hogue v. Wurdack, Mo., 292 S.W.2d The accident, out of which this claim arises (hereinafter referred to as the 19......
  • Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1957
    ...affirmed. An appeal was granted to this court but for lack of jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals, 292 S.W.2d 573. That court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, 301 S.W.2d 423. On application of the claimant, the case was transferred to this c......
  • Snowbarger v. M. F. A. Central Co-op.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1958
    ...case because our jurisdiction is limited and not general. Article V, Section 3, Mo.Const. 1945, V.A.M.S.; Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Co., Mo., 292 S.W.2d 573, 574[1, 2]. The provisions of Article V, Section 3, supra, make it certain that if this court has jurisdiction of this case i......
  • Scherr v. Siding & Roofing Sales Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 3, 1957
    ...of costs, and the motion therefore should be overruled. Hardt v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 340 Mo. 721, 102 S.W.2d 592; Crow v. Missouri Implement Tractor Co., Mo., 292 S.W.2d 573. The facts as they relate to the cause of the injury are not in dispute. Scherr worked as a salesman for the Siding ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT