Keleher v. Johnson

• Citation: 199 S.W. 935,272 Mo. 699
• Decision Date: 22 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18410.,18410.
• Parties: KELEHER v. JOHNSON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

199 S.W. 935

272 Mo. 699

KELEHER v. JOHNSON.

No. 18410.

Supreme Court of Missouri. In Banc.

December 22, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. N. Kinsey, Judge.

Action by Patrick F. Keleher and another against John B. Henderson. On the death of defendant his administrator was substituted. Judgment for plaintiffs, and plaintiff Keleher and defendant appeal. Transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Robt. E. Collins, of St. Louis, for plaintiff Keleher. E. P. Johnson and Barclay, Orthwein & Wallace, all of St. Louis, for defendant.

WILLIAMS, J.

This suit was instituted by Patrick F. Keleher and William C. Little, as plaintiffs, against John B. Henderson, defendant. The petition alleges that while the plaintiffs were doing business as copartners under the firm name of Keleher & Co. they entered into an agreement with the law firm of Henderson (original defendant herein) and Shields the substance of which agreement was that in consideration of the services of Keleher & Co. in procuring from the holders thereof certain county bonds and coupons, for the purpose of having said law firm bring suit thereon and reduce to judgment, the said law firm agreed to pay to Keleher & Co. 50 per cent. of the fees accruing to said law firm by reason of said employment.

Upon the first trial in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis judgment was rendered against plaintiffs and in favor of defendant on the theory that the contract in suit was champertous and void. From that judgment both plaintiffs appealed to this court, where the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded. Keleher & Little v. Henderson, 203 Mo. 498, 101 S. W. 1083.

Upon the second trial the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Keleher and against the defendant in the sum of $1,388.81. The trial court also rendered judgment against plaintiff Little upon finding that Little had theretofore assigned his one-half interest in the contract to the defendant, Henderson. From the judgment upon the last trial both the plaintiff Keleher and defendant, Henderson, appealed, but plaintiff Little did not appeal, and the judgment as to him became final.

After carefully considering the record before us, we have reached the conclusion that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal, and for that reason will limit the statement to such facts as are necessary to an understanding of the jurisdictional question.

Does the "amount in dispute" exceed the sum of $7,500? That is the sole question. From the record it appears that our jurisdiction cannot be based upon any other ground.

In determining the question of the amount in dispute, we are not necessarily bound by the statement in the petition, but may go to the whole record to ascertain...