Hardt v. City Ice & Fuel Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1937
• Docket Number: 35098
• Parties: Frank Hardt, Jr. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

102 S.W.2d 592

340 Mo. 721

Frank Hardt, Jr. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., Appellant

No. 35098

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 11, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John W Joynt, Judge.

Transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Moser Marsalek & Dearing for appellant.

McCarthy Morris, Smith & Sparrow for respondent.

OPINION

Tipton, J.

The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered a judgment in this cause whereby the findings and final award of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission were in all things affirmed. On August 27, 1935, the Compensation Commission made a finding and an award that the respondent had suffered permanent total disability, and awarded him the sum of $ 20 per week for 300 weeks and thereafter $ 13.50 per week for life. In its findings of fact the commission stated: "Amount of compensation payable: 300 weeks at $ 20.00 per week -- $ 6,000.00. Thereafter for life at $ 13.50 per week -- Unknown. Total, Unknown."

Have we jurisdiction of this cause? The question has not been raised by either party, but it is our duty to determine in each case whether we have jurisdiction of an appeal, although our jurisdiction has not been challenged. [Hohlstein v. St. Louis Roofing Co., 328 Mo. 899, 42 S.W.2d 573.] "Our appellate jurisdiction is not a general one, but one specifically limited by the Constitution. We have held, therefore, that our jurisdiction to determine an appeal must in every instance affirmatively appear from the record of the trial court. [Vordick v. Vordick, 281 Mo. 279, 219 S.W. 591.] Consequently such jurisdiction must so appear at the time the appeal is taken; nothing that subsequently occurs may be invoked either to confer jurisdiction or to show that the appeal was one falling within our jurisdiction. [McGregory v. Gaskill, 317 Mo. 122, 296 S.W. 123.]" [Stuart v. Stuart, 320 Mo. 486, 8 S.W.2d 613.]

If we have jurisdiction of this cause, it is because the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds $ 7500. The award in this case was $ 20 per week for 300 weeks, or a total of $ 6000, and $ 13.50 per week thereafter for life. Can it be said with certainty that the respondent will live 300 weeks and then long enough thereafter so that he will receive a sum in excess of $ 7500? We think not. Our jurisdiction attaches when, and only when, the record of the trial court affirmatively shows that there is involved in the controversy, independent of all contingencies, an amount exceeding $ 7500, exclusive of costs. [Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651; Stuart v. Stuart, supra.] Tested by this rule, we cannot say that, independent of all contingencies, the amount in dispute is more than $ 6000.

In the case of Platies v. Theodorow Baking Co., 334 Mo 508, 66 S.W.2d 147, the award was for temporary total disability in the sum of $ 20 per week for 397 weeks, which amounted to $ 7940. We held in that case that we did not have jurisdiction because the judgment was contingent upon the continuance of the disability. Not knowing how long the disability would continue, the amount in dispute might or might not exceed $ 7500. A mere chance that...