Heuer v. Ulmer
| Decision Date | 13 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 44288,No. 2,44288,2 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 169 |
| Parties | Herbert HEUER and Ervin Heuer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. E. ULMER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. Grant Frye, Cape Girardeau, for plaintiff.
Stephen Barton, Benton, Thomas L. Arnold, Benton, for defendant.
Plaintiffs filed their petition in the circuit court of Scott County in two counts. The first count was on a note for $2,756.33 which was executed as part of the purchase price of a Massey-Harris combine. Count two was for $271.36, the purchase price of parts used to repair the combine. The answer of defendant contained a counterclaim for $12,786 for damages sustained by defendant because defendant was unable to fulfill contracts he had to combine wheat and soybeans on account of the defective condition of the combine.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant on plaintiffs' counts one and two of their petition. On defendant's counterclaim the jury's verdict was for the plaintiffs.
There is no point raised by the brief in this court as to the counterclaim. In fact, defendant's brief says,
An issue adversely ruled on in the trial court but not presented on appeal must be regarded as abandoned. Brannan v. Long, Mo., 191 S.W.2d 625; Petty v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 355 Mo. 824, 198 S.W.2d 684; Crampton v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 125, 201 S.W.2d 336, 172 A.L.R. 344.
'The amount in dispute * * * is determined by the amount that actually remains in dispute between the parties on the appeal, and subject to the determination by the appellate court of the legal question raised by the record.' State ex rel. Federal Lead Co. v. Reynolds, 245 Mo. 698, loc. cit. 703-704, 151 S.W. 85, 86.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. King
...366 S.W.2d 501(1); Davis v. Ball, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 605. See Feste v. Newman, Mo. (banc), 368 S.W.2d 713, 715-716(6, 7); Heuer v. Ulmer, Mo., 273 S.W.2d 169. The collision under consideration occurred shortly before 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 18, 1962, in Joplin, Missouri, at the inte......
-
Feste v. Newman
...review. A contention of error not preserved for appellate review in the appellant's brief must be regarded as abandoned. Heuer v. Ulmer, Mo., 273 S.W.2d 169; Crampton v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 125, 201 S.W.2d 336, 172 A.L.R. 344. We conclude that plaintiff has presented no assignment of error in t......
-
Mitchell v. Mosher
...ride on the jurisdictional merry-go-round and another stop on our stoop. Compare Davis v. Ball, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 605; Heuer v. Ulmer, Mo., 273 S.W.2d 169; Haley v. Horwitz, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 796, 797(1). However, in the present posture of the case, we find no 'exceptional circumstances' wh......
-
Johnson v. Duensing, 47080
...the appellate court on the basis of questions raised by the record. Lemonds v. Holmes, Mo.Sup., 229 S.W.2d 691, 692(1); Heuer v. Ulmer, Mo.Sup., 273 S.W.2d 169, 170(2); Vannorsdel v. Thompson, supra. In this case the plaintiff obtained a money judgment for $2,758 for his costs and expenses ......