Jameson v. Fox
| Decision Date | 14 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43341,43341,2 |
| Citation | 364 Mo. 237,260 S.W.2d 507,58 A.L.R.2d 80 |
| Parties | , 58 A.L.R.2d 80 JAMESON et al. v. FOX |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Lincoln, Lincoln, Haseltine & Forehand, Harold T. Lincoln, Horace S. Haseltine, Edmund C. Forehand, Springfield, for appellant.
Farrington & Curtis, E. C. Curtis, Springfield, Roy C. Miller, Marshfield, for respondents.
Charles Jameson and Raymond D. Silkey brought this action as plaintiffs to recover damages occasioned by the alleged negligence of defendant Fox in so operating his passenger car as to cause it to collide with Jameson's milk truck which was being driven by his agent, Silkey. Jameson claimed $500 on account of damages to his truck, and Silkey $5,000 for personal injuries. Fox filed an answer, and also a counterclaim (in two counts) by which he sought to recover $15,000 for the wrongful death of his wife and $5,926.50 actual damages (plus $5,000 punitive damages) for personal injuries and property loss, all allegedly sustained by him as a result of plaintiffs' negligence in the operation of the milk truck at the time and place in question. The collision occurred in Webster County about 10 a. m., on November 10, 1949, at the intersection of an east-west gravel road (on which Silkey was driving east) and a north-south black top road (on which Fox was driving north). Plaintiffs' claims were submitted under instructions hypothesizing negligence under the humanitarian doctrine and primary negligence in that defendant failed to exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of his motor vehicle--in particulars which are counterparts of those under which defendant's counterclaim was submitted. Both counts of defendant's counterclaim were submitted under a single instruction hypothesizing primary negligence on Silkey's part in having 'failed to use the highest degree of care in that he failed, carelessly and negligently, to keep a vigilant and diligent lookout both laterally and ahead on said highway, or that he carelessly and negligently failed to keep said truck under proper control so that the same could be slowed down, turned or stopped as the occasion might require.' Upon such submissions, the jury found separate verdicts for each plaintiff for $500, and also found for them and against defendant on the latter's counterclaim. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and defendant appealed to the Springfield Court of Appeals, where appellant subsequently filed a motion to transfer the appeal, alleging jurisdiction to be in this court 'because of the amount involved in the counterclaim.' The motion was sustained (without opinion), and it was adjudged that the cause 'be transferred to the Supreme Court under authority of Davis et al. v. Hauschild, Mo.Sup., 243 S.W.2d 956.'
The jurisdictional statement does nothing more than state the mere conclusion that 'the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $7500.' The intent and purpose of S.Ct. rule 1.08(a)(1) is that the record facts affecting jurisdiction shall be sufficiently developed to demonstrate the existence of the asserted jurisdiction. But in the absence of such a statement, we have searched the record and found the facts controlling the question to be as stated above, and from them we have reached the conclusion that the 'amount in dispute' does not exceed $7,500. The amounts recovered by plaintiffs on their respective claims aggregate the sum of $1,000, which figure (and not the amount demanded in the counterclaim) is the 'amount in dispute' for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction under the facts of this particular case. This is not a case where plaintiffs' claims and defendant's counterclaim can coexist in law. Proof of one necessarily disproves the other, so that there can be no such eventuality as both recovering, or, on this appeal, affirming the judgment on plaintiffs' claims and reversing it as to defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langhammer v. City of Mexico, Mo.
...either the spirit or purpose of Rule 1.08. See the illustrative note and comment to the amended rule, 42 V.A.M.S.; Jameson v. Fox, 364 Mo. 237, 260 S.W.2d 507, 58 A.L.R.2d 80, and Trokey v. United States Cartridge Co., Mo., 214 S.W.2d 526. The appellant-defendant contends that it is entitle......
-
Mitchell v. Mosher
...Community Bank, Inc., Mo., 329 S.W.2d 718, 720], or (c) where there is a vexing problem involving a counterclaim. Jameson v. Fox, 364 Mo. 237, 260 S.W.2d 507, 58 A.L.R.2d 80. In ascertaining whether there are such 'exceptional circumstances,' the inquiring court is not restricted to the ple......
-
Jones v. Trotter
...compliance with Rule 1.08. See note and illustrative comment to amended Rule 1.08, 42 V.A.M.S. supp., p. 4, and Jameson v. Fox, 364 Mo. 237, 260 S.W.2d 507, 58 A.L.R.2d 80. The court, nevertheless, has read and considered the record for the sole purpose of determining whether for any reason......
-
Wilson v. Tonsing
...nature, only one or the other, a plaintiff or a defendant, can ever recover (Hoefel v. Hammel, Mo.App., 228 S.W.2d 402; Jameson v. Fox, 364 Mo. 237, 260 S.W.2d 507; Willibald Schaefer Co. v. Blanton Co., Mo.App., 264 S.W.2d 920; Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. v. Cervantes, Mo.App., 278 S.W.2d 20; S......