Kitchell v. Manchester Road Electric Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1898 |
| Citation | 48 S.W. 448,146 Mo. 455 |
| Parties | KITCHELL v. MANCHESTER ROAD ELECTRIC RY. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.
Suit by Norton D. Kitchell against the Manchester Road Electric Railway Company for injunction. Bill dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred to court of appeals.
Jas. M. Lewis and Chester H. Krum, for appellant. McKeighan, Barclay & Watts, Dawson & Garvin, and G. A. Finkelnburg, for respondent.
This record presents a question of appellate jurisdiction, which, so far as we have observed, has not been directly passed upon by this court. Plaintiff, a citizen of St. Louis, and the owner of a lot fronting 25 feet on the south line of Manchester avenue, between Talmage avenue and the junction of Chouteau avenue and Manchester road, brought this suit in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to restrain and enjoin the Manchester Road Electric Railway Company from constructing, operating, and maintaining its street railway upon and along certain streets and highways mentioned in the petition. It may be stated generally, and without going into details, that the ground relied upon for the injunction is that the railway company has no legal warrant for using the streets named for the purposes of its road. It is alleged that the laying of the tracks had already been a serious damage to plaintiff's property, and that their maintenance in the future will cause great and further damage, the full extent of which plaintiff cannot estimate. The answer pleads several ordinances of the city empowering defendant to build the road, and alleges compliance therewith on its part. There is nothing before us to show the value of plaintiff's lot; nor does it anywhere appear that the building of this street railway will damage the same in excess of $2,500, or that the injury to him in consequence of the construction of said road will, on any account, exceed that sum. The city of St. Louis was made a defendant, but the suit was dismissed as to said city before the trial in the circuit court, and it was not a party to the record when the appeal was taken. No constitutional question is raised in the pleadings or was before the trial court, and none has been discussed here. The circuit court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff is the appellant.
The only ground upon which it can be said that the appeal is properly before us is that the amount involved in the litigation brings the case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...should the relief be granted, or vice versa, should the relief be denied." Gast Banknote Co. v. Fennimore Assn., 147 Mo. 557; Kitchell v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 455; Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 284 Mo. 418. (2) This loss to plaintiff or defendant must be "ascertained by well-known rules regulat......
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...be granted, or vice versa, should the relief be denied." [Gast Bank Note & Lithograph Co. v. Fennimore Assn., 147 Mo. 557; Kitchell v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 455; Realty Co. v. Kelly, 284 Mo. 418; Cambest v. Hydro Electric Co., 292 Mo. 570; Handlan v. Stifel, 219 S.W. 616; State ex rel. v. Mi......
-
State ex rel. Brenner v. Trimble
...in dispute is to be ascertained from the entire record -- not merely plaintiff's petition. Perkins v. Silverman, 223 S.W. 903; Kitchell v. Ry. Co., 146 Mo. 455; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 130 Mo. 288. See, Gartside v. Gartside, 42 Mo.App. 513. (8) That the proper appellate court may, on ult......
-
Joe Dan Market v. Wentz
...versa, should the relief be denied." [Gast Bank Note & Lithograph Co. v. Fennimore Assn., 147 Mo. 557, 49 S.W. 511; Kitchell v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 455, 48 S.W. 448; Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 284 Mo. 418, 224 S.W. 410; Cambest v. Hydro Electric Co., 292 Mo. 570, 239 S.W. 477; Handlan v. St......