Haarmann v. Davis, 12333
| Decision Date | 23 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 12333,12333 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 39 |
| Parties | Raymond L. HAARMANN and Norma J. Haarmann, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. C. Ivan DAVIS and Willodean Davis, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel T. Moore, L. Joe Scott, Daniel T. Moore, Poplar Bluff, for plaintiffs-respondents.
David W. Keathley, Keathley & Purcell, Poplar Bluff, for defendants-appellants.
In a two-count petition plaintiffs sought actual damages for breach of contract and punitive damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. Defendants filed a general denial to the petition and a third-party petition against a named corporation, seeking indemnification for any damages awarded plaintiffs.
The purported judgment from which defendants lodged this appeal is as follows:
The right of appeal is purely statutory. Sec. 512.020, RSMo 1978; Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590 (Mo.App.1979). A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in the action (Sec. 511.020, RSMo 1978, Rule 74.01, V.A.M.R.) and where it does not dispose of all parties and all issues, it is generally not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 600 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.App.1980). See Rule 81.05, V.A.M.R.
Here, the trial court's action in rendering general judgment against defendants without specifying upon which count and without making any final disposition of defendants' third-party claim, did not result in a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Young v. Raupp, 301 S.W.2d 873 (Mo.App.1957).
Defendants' appeal is premature and is, therefore, ordered dismissed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Hatch, In re
...be aggrieved when the trial court granted the relief he sought. 1 Because the right to appeal is purely statutory, Haarmann v. Davis, 620 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Mo.App.1981), we start with § 512.020, RSMo 1986. With exceptions not applicable here, it provides that " '[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved......
-
Chura v. Bank of Bourbon, 13331
...of the issues between all of the parties. The right of appeal is purely statutory, § 512.020, RSMo 1978; Rule 81.01; Haarmann v. Davis, 620 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Mo.App.1981); Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Mo.App.1979). A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the......
-
Maurer v. Clark
...for purposes of appeal. Chura, supra, at 677; Boyd v. Boone Management, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Mo.App.1983) 1; and Haarmann v. Davis, 620 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Mo.App.1981). A party to an action is a person whose name is designated on record as plaintiff or defendant. Downey v. United Weatherp......
-
Warmann v. Ebeling, 44071
... ... Citing that case, it was held in Haarmann v. Davis, ... 620 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1981), that a judgment is not appealable when it does not ... ...