Dawson v. Scott
| Decision Date | 08 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 30062.,30062. |
| Parties | ROBERT L. DAWSON, doing business as R.L. DAWSON PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY, v. CORA LEE SCOTT, Plaintiff in Error; R.L. McCONNELL ET AL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Luther N. Dempsey and Charles A. Stratton for plaintiff in error.
(1) The assignment division, having ordered this case sent to Division No. 5 for trial, Division No. 8 was without authority to take jurisdiction thereof; and the order made by Division No. 5, reciting that the cause was transferred to Division No. 8, by agreement of judges, was void, and conferred no jurisdiction upon Division No. 8 in this case. Haehl v. Railway, 119 Mo. 337; Voullaire v. Voullaire, 45 Mo. 602; Meierhoffer v. Hansel, 294 Mo. 202. (2) Division No. 8 was without authority of law to continue the cause to the first day of the January term, 1927, after trial was begun and before same was concluded, in the November, 1926, term. And the act of Division No. 8, in attempting to hear this cause and to render judgment therein, on the 24th day of March, 1927, term, was without legal authority and void; even had the case been properly assigned to Division No. 8 in the first place. State v. Jeffors, 64 Mo. 376; Neal v. Railways Co., 214 S.W. 563; State ex rel. v. Davis, 201 S.W. 529; Jacques v. Railroad Co., 43 Conn. 34; State v. Crilly, 69 Kan. 802; Hunt v. Griffin, 48 Miss. 748; 1 Bouvier's Law Dict. (Rawle's 3rd Rev.) 880.
Strother, Campbell & Strother, Al Lebrecht and George K. Brasher for defendant in error.
(1) The order made by Division No. 5 on January 5, 1927, reciting that the cause was transferred to Division No. 8 by agreement of judges was valid and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Division No. 8 of said circuit court to try said cause. Sec. 1954, R.S. 1929; Rule 26 Circuit Court of Jackson County; State ex rel. Clinton Const. Co. v. Johnson, 272 S.W. 928; Sec. 1061, R.S. 1929; In re Aiken, 262 Mo. 403, 171 S.W. 346; Blanchard v. Dorman, 236 Mo. 416, 139 S.W. 400. (2) Division No. 8 having acquired the exclusive jurisdiction of this cause, retained that exclusive jurisdiction until the conclusion of the trial, even though the trial was commenced during the January, 1927, term and was not concluded until after the beginning of the March, 1927, term of said court. Sec. 1859, R.S. 1929; Horn v. The Excelsior Springs Co., 52 Mo. App. 552; Mayor v. Yocum, 15 Mo. App. 579; Boyer v. St. Joseph, 187 S.W. 1185.
Cora Lee Scott, plaintiff in error, was a defendant in a mechanic's lien suit, filed in the Jackson County Circuit Court, at Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff in the mechanic's lien suit asked for a judgment against defendant, Cora Lee Scott, in the sum of one thousand five hundred and forty-eight dollars and five cents ($1,548.05). Cora Lee Scott filed an answer denying plaintiff's claim, and also filed a counterclaim, asking damages in the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000), against plaintiff, for faulty construction and negligent performance of plaintiff's contract. Other lienholders were made parties defendant, but their claims are not material to the issues here involved.
[1] The trial court entered a judgment against defendant Scott in favor of plaintiff in the sum of one thousand five hundred and forty-eight dollars and five cents ($1,548.05). The court denied the counterclaim in toto. Defendant Cora Lee Scott sued out a writ of error in the Kansas City Court of Appeals. That court issued the writ. After the record of the case was filed in the Court of Appeals, an order was made, transferring the case to this court. The basis of the order, by the Court of Appeals, is that the amount involved, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.) When the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court depends upon the pecuniary amount involved, it must be measured by the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs. In this case, Cora Lee Scott claimed defendant in error owed her six thousand dollars ($6,000) and that she did not owe defendant in error anything. Defendant in error, on the other hand, claimed plaintiff in error owed him one thousand five hundred forty-eight dollars and five cents ($1,548.05) and that he did not owe plaintiff in error anything. The amount in dispute, between the parties, was and is seven thousand five hundred and forty-eight dollars and five cents ($7,548.05). Hence the jurisdiction in this court. [State ex rel. v. Trimble, 326 Mo. 702, 32 S.W. (2d) 760; Kitchen v. City of Clinton, 320 Mo. 569, 8 S.W. (2d) 602.]
[2] Plaintiff in error has made a short, concise statement of the points involved. We will adopt it as our own. It reads:
The position of plaintiff in error is stated under points and authorities as follows:
A complete answer to the first contention, made by plaintiff in error, is found in Section 1954, Revised Statutes 1929, which reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton v. City of Lockwood
...in favor of defendant on its counterclaim. The amount in dispute exceeds $7,500 and we have jurisdiction of the appeal. Dawson v. Scott, 330 Mo. 185, 49 S.W.2d 87, 88. The trial was to the court without a jury. We review the law and the evidence as in suits in equity. Consentino v. Heffelfi......
- Miller v. Proctor
-
Albers Mill. Co. v. Carney
...Mo. 341, 282 S.W.2d 512, 513(1); Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 957(1), same case Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 920; Dawson v. Scott, 330 Mo. 185, 49 S.W.2d 87, 88(1); Luft v. Strobel, 322 Mo. 955, 19 S.W.2d 721, 722(1); Conrad v. De Montcourt, 138 Mo. 311, 39 S.W. 805, 806-807. Furthermore......
-
In re Hukreda's Estate
...matters except those that may appear upon the face of the record, rendering the judgment of the circuit court void." Dawson v. Scott, 330 Mo. 185, 189, 49 S.W.2d 87, 89. In view of the record presented the only error we can possibly consider is whether the court had jurisdiction of this cla......