Evans v. City of St. Louis, 39785.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 39785.,39785. |
| Citation | 198 S.W.2d 9 |
| Parties | ANNE M. EVANS, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, a Municipal Corporation. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. William K. Koerner, Judge.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Anne M. Evans for appellant.
George L. Stemmler, City Counselor, and S.R. Redmond, Associate City Counselor, for respondent.
This is an action under our statute to determine title to real property (Sec. 1684, R.S. 1939) instituted by Anne M. Evans against the City of St. Louis. The amended petition, upon which the cause proceeded, is in fourteen counts. The parties stipulated that counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 (relating to the issue of title) be taken up and counts 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (relating to damages) be heard at a subsequent date. The trial resulted in findings of fact by the court on November 5, 1945 (modified on December 3, 1945), to the effect that plaintiff acquired whatever title she had to the several tracts described in counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 under judgments rendered for special benefits in condemnation suits and in count 3 at a sale for general taxes; that in 1937 and 1938 defendant City purchased the real estate described in counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 at sales for general taxes to protect the taxes due it; that plaintiff failed to make the allegations required by Sec. 11179, R.S. 1939, in suits of this nature; and concluded on the law, among other things, that plaintiff's failure to include the allegations required by Sec. 11179, R.S. 1939, necessitated the dismissal of counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14, without prejudice; and that counts 3 and 5 should be dismissed also because necessary parties defendant were not joined, the City of St. Louis disclaiming any interest therein. Counts 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were undisposed of and were transferred to Division No. I of the court. Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from the "judgment of November 5, 1945, and order overruling motion for a new trial entered in this action on the 3rd day of December, 1945."
The City of St. Louis has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the appeal is premature, there being no "final judgment." But, before we reach that point, an examination of the record presented for review discloses that there is no copy of any judgment therein. The transcript on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Brussel
...copy of the sheriff's deed to her, and pages 17, 18, 19 and part of page 45 of the transcript filed in this court in Evans v. City of St. Louis, 355 Mo. 790, 198 S.W.2d 9. The City of St. Louis introduced the collector's deed issued to it and some oral testimony from an employee of the coll......
-
Lieffring v. Birt
...transcript. Secs. 135, 136. The same is required by Supreme Court Rule 1.04. It was said by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Evans v. City of St. Louis, 198 S.W.2d 9: "* * * an examination of the record presented for review discloses that there is no copy of any judgment therein. The transc......
-
Lieffring v. Birt
...transcript. Secs. 135, 136. The same is required by Supreme Court Rule 1.04. It was said by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Evans v. City of St. Louis, 198 S.W.2d 9: * * an examination of the record presented for review discloses that there is no copy of any judgment therein. The transcrip......
-
Whealen v. St. Louis Soft Ball Ass'n
... ... game at the St.Louis Soft Ball Association Park in the City ... of St.Louis. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence at ... the trial, the court, on ... We ... believe it is proper that we should refer to the case of ... Evans, appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Mo.Sup., 198 ... S.W.2d 9, decided by our Supreme Court in an ... ...