Hartman v. McFadden, 13466
| Decision Date | 13 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 13466,13466 |
| Parties | Lawrence Leslie HARTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frankie M. McFADDEN, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Gene C. Thompson, Carthage, for plaintiff-appellant.
James R. Spradling, Esterly, Spradling & Checkett, Carthage, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff filed a petition seeking damages and an injunction. Plaintiff received a preliminary injunction, having deposited cash in lieu of bond as allowed by Rule 92.02(c). Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was sustained, the petition dismissed and the preliminary injunction dissolved.
Defendant then filed a motion seeking damages resulting from the injunction. Plaintiff sought a jury trial on the amount of damages. The trial court found "that the instant case is an equitable one and the request for a jury trial is overruled." The trial court then determined the damages without a jury and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals. He contends the trial court erred regarding the dismissal of his petition and in not having a trial by jury on defendant's damages.
Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the notice of appeal was not timely filed following the trial court's order dismissing the petition and dissolving the preliminary injunction. That order was entered on January 14, 1983.
The judgment assessing damages due to the injunction was entered on August 26, 1983. Plaintiff filed an after-trial motion on September 2, 1983. The motion was overruled on September 16, 1983, and notice of appeal filed September 23, 1983. The notice of appeal states that the judgment appealed from was dated August 26, 1983.
The appeal was timely on issues directed to defendant's damages caused by the injunction but not on issues affecting the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition and the dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The order dismissing the petition and dissolving the preliminary injunction was appealable when entered and failure to appeal within the time prescribed bars this court from now considering whether the order was erroneous. J & P Trust v. Continental Plants Corp., 541 S.W.2d 22, 25-26 (Mo.App.1976).
A motion for assessment of damages on an injunction bond is a new, separate and independent controversy and a judgment thereon is appealable. J & P Trust v. Continental Plants Corp., supra, 541 S.W.2d at 26. Plaintiff's after-trial motion was timely filed, see Rule 73.01(a)(3), and plaintiff timely appealed from the August 26th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFadden v. Hartman
...May 18, 1984. Subsequently, Hartman brought an action for "betterments" under §§ 524.160 to 524.250. That action led to Hartman v. McFadden, 675 S.W.2d 454 (Mo.App.1984). The details of this tangled litigation can be found in State ex rel. Hartman v. Casteel, supra, and will only be summari......
-
Eickelmann v. Eickelmann
...for the assessment of damages on an injunction bond is an independent action and a judgment thereon is appealable. Hartman v. McFadden, 675 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Mo.App.1984). The dissolution of an injunction amounts to a determination that the injunction was wrongfully obtained, and a right of ......