Germo Manufacturing Co. v. Combs

• Decision Date: 07 April 1921
• Citation: 229 S.W. 1072,287 Mo. 273
• Parties: GERMO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. ROBERT C. COMBS et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

229 S.W. 1072

287 Mo. 273

GERMO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. ROBERT C. COMBS et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

April 7, 1921

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Willard P. Hall, Judge.

Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

Bruce Barnett, G. W. Barnett and J. H. Rodes for appellant; Henry Lamm of counsel.

Ingraham Guthrie & Durham for respondents.

OPINION

WALKER, J.

This is a suit in equity to enjoin defendants from using an alleged secret formula used by plaintiff in the compounding of a poultry remedy. The trial judge, after a review of all of the testimony, found in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appealed to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, which, on its own motion, transferred the case to this court on the ground that the amount in dispute exceeded the jurisdiction of that court. That question confronts us at the threshold of the case.

After numerous specific allegations of unfair competition, the petition states:

"That the defendants have wrongfully taken from the plaintiff and appropriated to their own use many customers and prospective customers of plaintiff, and the profit on a large business that it has built up, and has materially damaged the plaintiff in a sum in excess of $ 10,000; that defendants are now engaged in said unlawful competition, and propose to continue the same to the further great loss and damage to this plaintiff.

"Plaintiff says that on account of the continuing nature of defendants' wrongful acts and the inability of the plaintiff to determine fully the amount or extent of its damages, and the fact that it is a constantly continuing and recurring injury, which renders it impossible to definitely estimate the extent and nature of plaintiff's injury and damage, and because plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law it appeals to the equitable interposition of this court for injunctive relief. That if defendants are not restrained and enjoined from their unlawful competition, plaintiff will continue to suffer and sustain great and irreparable loss and injury from which no adequate remedy is given at law."

After other general allegations of injury, not pertinent here, the petition closes with the following prayer:

"That the court, upon restraining and enjoining defendants, may take an account as to the extent of plaintiff's damages, and award the plaintiff such damages that it has sustained, by reason of such unfair competition, in the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars; and that the plaintiff may have and recover from the defendants the costs in its behalf laid out and expended."

General averments as to the extent of plaintiff's damages as disclosed in the foregoing excerpts from the petition are only rendered definitive by the prayer, which fixes the maximum amount claimed at $ 7,500. Under no circumstances could the plaintiff recover a greater amount. Cases, therefore, are not applicable which hold that in ascertaining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court we are not restricted to the amount claimed in the petition, but may look into the entire record and from that determine the amount in dispute or the monetary value of the right claimed to have been lost. Cases illustrative of the application of that rule are numerous. It is significant, in distinguishing them from the case at bar, that in none of them was it attempted in looking into the record to ascertain if the plaintiff was entitled to a larger amount of damages than claimed in his petition, but to ascertain if there were substantial grounds upon which a right of recovery of the claim as made could be based. To illustrate: In Ferguson v. Comfort, 264 Mo. 274, 174 S.W. 411, property of the value of $ 6,000 and damages in the sum of $ 5,000 were claimed. The record disclosed an abandonment of the claim of $ 5000 and hence it was held that there was no jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. In State ex rel. Electric L. & P. Co. v. Reynolds, 256 Mo. 710, the amount in dispute upon which the jurisdiction depended was not definitely stated in the petition, but the proceeding being one to oust a corporation of its franchise which had a capital stock of an amount and a going business of a value far in excess of the maximum limit of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, it was held that the case should be determined in the Supreme Court. In Wilson v. Drainage District, 237 Mo. 39, the amount claimed in the prayer of the petition, with interest, was found, upon an inspection of the record, to be less than the maximum amount of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and the case was transferred to that court for final determination. In McCoy v. Randall, 222 Mo. 24, 121 S.W. 31, special tax-bills belonging to the same person were sought by plaintiff to be declared void by injunction. An inspection of the record disclosed that their aggregate...