Freeman v. St. Louis Quarry Co.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1888
• Parties: T. W. FREEMAN, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS QUARRY COMPANY et al., Appellants. W. H. NAVE, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS QUARRY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

30 Mo.App. 362

T. W. FREEMAN, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS QUARRY COMPANY et al., Appellants.

W. H. NAVE, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS QUARRY COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

April 10, 1888

APPEALS from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HON. GEORGE W. LUBKE Judge.

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

T. J CORNELIUS, for the appellant.

W. B HOMER, for the respondents.

OPINION

ROMBAUER P. J.

A motion to transfer this cause to the Supreme Court in pursuance of the provisions of the act of March 18, 1885 (Laws, 1885, page 121), has been filed herein by the appellants, the St. Louis Quarry Company, and the City of St. Louis, on the ground tat the Supreme Court alone has appellate jurisdiction thereof. This motion is resisted by the respondents on the ground that the city is not before this court at all, and as to the other appellant this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

As the question presented is one of first impression, and may frequently occur, and is not free from doubt, we have concluded to sustain the motion, so that upon a motion to remand filed in the Supreme Court, that court may have an opportunity to establish a precedent for the guidance of this court in similar cases.

The facts are these: The two cases being tried together the trial court rendered judgment therein against both defendants for the sums of two hundred dollars and one hundred and seventy-five dollars, respectively. From the judgments thus rendered both defendants appealed during the term, the quarry company on February 2, 1888, and the city on the succeeding day. The appeal of the quarry company was made returnable to this court, and that of the city to the Supreme Court of the state.

The constitution originally provided for appeals from this court to the Supreme Court, in cases where a county or other political subdivision of the state is a party. The constitution now provides that in all causes or proceedings reviewable by the Supreme Court, appeals shall lie from the trial courts directly to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of such appeals. It will be noticed that neither the original constitution nor its amendment makes the final or exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depend upon the fact that such political subdivision is the sole party to the cause, but that it is a party. This court, therefore, has no appellate jurisdiction of any cause now in which a political subdivision of the state is a party.

It is true that under the practice of this state, a severance in an appeal is admissible. It is...