Eads v. Kansas City Electric Light Co. et al.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 11676.,11676. |
| Citation | 180 S.W. 994 |
| Parties | EADS v. KANSAS CITY ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
"Not to be officially published.
Action by Beatrice Eads against the Kansas City Electric Light Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Cause transferred to Supreme Court.
Milton J. Oldham and Porter & Barnes, all of Kansas City, for appellant. John H. Lucas, Charles N. Sadler, and Charles A. Stratton, all of Kansas City, for respondents.
Plaintiff sued for damages in the sum of $10,000 for the death of her husband, which, she alleges, was caused by negligence of defendants. At the close of the trial, and on December 10, 1914, the jury, in obedience to a peremptory instruction, returned a verdict for defendants, and on the same day judgment was endered for defendants on the verdict.
The record recites (page 187) that after the jury was discharged plaintiff asked and was granted leave to amend her petition to reduce the amount of damages alleged and prayed for from $10,000 to $7,300. Afterward, and in proper time, a motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and an appeal was allowed plaintiff to this court.
The cause was argued and submitted April 12, 1915, without any question of our jurisdiction being raised, but it is our duty to ascertain, on our own motion, whether or not we have jurisdiction before proceeding to a determination of the cause on its merits. Dubowsky v. Binggeli, 258 Mo. 197, 167 S. W. 999, and cases cited.
Where the plaintiff is defeated at the trial and appeals, the amount claimed in the petition is taken as the amount in dispute for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction (Schwyhart v. Barrett, 223 Mo. 407, 122 S. W. 1049), and we regard the decision of the Supreme Court in Powers v. Railway, 262 Mo. 701, 172 S. W. 1, as supporting the view that the course of the appeal cannot be changed by an amendment of the petition allowed after the return of the verdict and the discharge of the jury. In that case, as in this, plaintiff claimed damages in the amount of $10,-000, and was allowed to amend his petition to reduce his pleaded damages to $4,500 after he was compelled to take a nonsuit with leave and his motion for a new trial was overruled. The judgment was treated as having been rendered on the date of the nonsuit, and it was held that the amount claimed in the petition at the date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Commonwealth Trust Company v. Reynolds
... ... City of St. Louis against the Commonwealth Trust Company ... Louis Court of Appeals, established the Kansas City Court of ... Appeals, and among other powers thereby ... Comfort, ... 264 Mo. 274, 174 S.W. 411; Eads v. K. C. Elec. Light ... Co., 180 S.W. 994; Berry ... ...
-
State ex rel. Long v. Ellison
... ... JOHN C. LONG v. JAMES ELLISON et al., Judges of Kansas City Court of Appeals, and MARGUERITA CLARK Supreme Court ... 262 Mo. 701, 705, 172 S.W. 1; [272 Mo. 579] Eads v. Kansas ... City Electric Light Co., 180 S.W. 994.]" ... ...
-
State v. Reynolds
...is the amount recovered below. Craton v. Huntzinger, 187 S. W. 48; Ferguson v. Comfort, 264 Mo. 271, 174 S. W. 411; Eads v. K. C. Elec. Light Co., 180 S. W. 994; Berry Foundry, etc., Co. v. Inter. Moulders, etc., 251 Mo. 448, 158 S. W. Here there were cross-appeals. Where both parties appea......
-
State v. Ellison
...City Court of Appeals. Powers v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 262 Mo. 701, loc. cit. 705, 172 S. W. 1; Eads v. Kansas City Electric Light Company (App.) 180 S. W. 994." The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling nisi as to new trial, and reinstated the judgment for $7,500. Further detail......