Holmes v. Kansas City

• Citation: 108 S.W. 1134,209 Mo. 513
• Parties: HOLMES v. KANSAS CITY et al.
• Decision Date: 11 April 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

108 S.W. 1134

209 Mo. 513

HOLMES v. KANSAS CITY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 11, 1908.

1. JUDGMENT—ON APPEAL—CONCLUSIVENESS.

An adjudication of the Supreme Court is final, not only in the action in which it is rendered, but in all others wherein it may be pleaded as res judicata.

2. APPEAL—MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT.

Where, pending an appeal from a judgment dismissing an injunction suit involving the right of plaintiff to the real estate in issue, defendant appropriated the property, plaintiff, on being adjudged by the Supreme Court the owner, had an adequate remedy at law, and the judgment in her favor would not be modified, so as to cover the question of damages for the wrongful appropriation by defendant.

On motion to modify judgment. Overruled. For former opinion, see 108 S. W. 9.

GRAVES, J.

Plaintiff files motion to modify our original judgment in this case. The original suit was purely one asking for injunctive relief. In that suit, among other questions, the question of plaintiff's right and interest in the property involved was in issue, as well as the further question as to whether or not she had been compensated for it. The trial court dismissed her bill, and pending the appeal it appears, from the motion to modify the judgment, that the city of Kansas City appropriated her property. We say her property, for such was the adjudication of this court, which is final, not only in this action but in all others wherein it could be pleaded as res adjudicata.

So, also, with regard to the question of compensation to plaintiff. By our judgment the judgment of the lower court was reversed and remanded, with directions to enter up a judgment making the temporary injunction permanent. By the present motion we are asked to so modify the directions given in that judgment "as to permit said appellant and plaintiff to file a supplemental petition in said circuit court setting up such damages as she claims to have sustained as aforesaid, and authorizing said circuit court to inquire into said claim for damages, and to award to appellant and plaintiff such damages as upon such inquiry the said circuit court may find that she has sustained as aforesaid." We hardly think this the proper practice. If pendente lite the city bodily appropriated the plaintiff's property wrongfully, as would appear from our opinion, then plaintiff has her full and adequate remedy to recover damages for the same. She has the same rights as she would...