Egan v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.

Decision Date17 May 1979
Docket NumberNo. 10439,LOUIS-SAN,10439
Citation581 S.W.2d 939
PartiesJohn D. EGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST.FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO., a corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Edward V. Sweeney, Sweeney & Sweeney, Monett, for plaintiff-appellant.

C. Wallace Walter, F. Bennett Lilley, Jr., Kim W. Reeves, Mann, Walter, Burkart, Weathers & Warden, Springfield, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff sued defendant railroad for actual and punitive damages because, as he alleged, defendant wrongfully discharged plaintiff and thereafter fraudulently induced plaintiff to execute a written resignation from his employment as a car loading claims clerk. Defendant moved the court nisi to dismiss the petition on the ground that the National Railroad Adjustment Board per 45 USCS § 151 et seq., had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's averred grievances. The court obliged defendant and plaintiff appealed.

Because of plaintiff's evident infractions of Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., which will be noted anon, we do not reach the merits vel non of the appeal. However, were the appeal to be otherwise considered, we believe that Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 406 U.S. 320, 92 S.Ct. 1562, 32 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972), would fully justify the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

The two points relied on by plaintiff read:

"I.

The jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board is limited to matters, grievances and disputes between carriers and their employees.

The Railway Labor Act, Chapter 8

Title 45, United States Code, Sections 151-188

II.

When plaintiff executed his resignation from defendant's employment, his employment contract terminated and his status as an employee ceased to exist, notwithstanding the fact that such resignation was brought about by defendant's wrongdoing. Thereafter, the National Railroad Adjustment Board had no jurisdiction over his case. He had no standing to pursue any administrative remedies, either personally or by a designated representative, and his only remaining remedy is the one which he seeks in this action at law.

35 Am.Jur., Sec. 26, pages 462, 463

53 Am.Jur.2d, Sec. 35 (sic), page 111".

Even assuming the correctness of the assertion made in plaintiff's first point relied on, it is obvious that, in total disregard of the mandates of Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., the point amounts to nothing more than an abstract statement of law which does not undertake to relate itself to the trial court's action nor attempt to specify wherein and why the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss the petition. Payne v. St. Louis Grain Corp., 562 S.W.2d 102, 104(1) (Mo.App.1977); Estate of DeGraff, 560 S.W.2d 342, 345(4) (Mo.App.1977); State ex rel. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 555 S.W.2d 328, 330(1) (Mo.App.1977); Cavaness v. Armstrong, 525 S.W.2d 446, 447(1) (Mo.App.1975).

As to plaintiff's second point relied on, and contrary to the requirements of Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., which must be strictly applied (Glastris v. Union Elec. Co., 542 S.W.2d 65, 69(5) (Mo.App.1976); Associates Discount Corp. of Iowa v. Fitzwater, 518 S.W.2d 474, 477(2) (Mo.App.1974)), wherein and why the alleged wrongfully induced resignation terminated plaintiff's employment, abrogated the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, deprived plaintiff of administrative remedies and relegated him to an action at law in the state court is left for us to ponder, guess and conjecture. The point preserves nothing for appellate review. Hall v. Hall, 506 S.W.2d 42, 44(1) (Mo.App.1974). Moreover, the citations appended to this point pertain to "Termination (of employment contracts) by Voluntary act of party." (Emphasis supplied). These citations do not comport with an unlawful or involuntarily induced termination of employment. Neither do they purport to apply to or support the other abstractions penned in the point. When a point in an appellant's brief is solely buttressed by authorities not germane, it is tantamount to a point presented naked of citations and preserves nothing for appellate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tudor v. Tudor
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1981
    ...this point are cited three cases wholly impertinent thereto, which makes the presentation naked of authority. Egan v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 581 S.W.2d 939, 940(3) (Mo.App.1979). "Albeit Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 687(12, 13) (Mo. banc 1978) holds 'that Rule 84(.04(d)) does not requ......
  • Willard v. Doyle, 11816
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1981
    ...attempt to relate itself to the trial court's actions and, therefore, preserves nothing for appellate review. Egan v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 581 S.W.2d 939, 940(1) (Mo.App.1979). Nevertheless, because of the nature of the matter involved, we are constrained to abstain from dismissing the ......
  • State ex rel. Martin Machinery v. Line One
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2003
    ...by the trial court nor this court in deciding whether the petition stated a cause of action." Egan v. St. Louis San Francisco Ry. Co., 581 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Mo.App. S.D.1979). We agree with Appellants that Respondent's Count II failed to set forth a cause of action as to the Completion Agree......
  • Bishop v. Bishop, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1981
    ...solely buttressed by authorities not germane, it is tantamount to a point presented naked of citations. Egan v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 581 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Mo.App.1979). The absence of citation of a statute or case supporting the proposition asserted by a party indicates that ......
  • 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