Krummenacher v. Western Auto Supply Co.
Decision Date | 07 January 1949 |
Docket Number | 40854 |
Citation | 217 S.W.2d 473,358 Mo. 757 |
Parties | Edwin A. Krummenacher and Mabel Krummenacher, Respondents, v. Western Auto Supply Company, a Corporation, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied February 14, 1949.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Eugene J Sartorius, Judge.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Shepley Kroeger, Fisse & Ingamells, and Wm. K. Stanard II, for appellant.
(1) The jurisdiction of a court to render a particular judgment in a particular case cannot be affected by waiver or consent. State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52; Johnson v. Frank, 354 Mo. 767, 191 S.W.2d 618; Dusenberg v. Rudolph, 325 Mo. 881, 30 S.W.2d 94. (2) Equity may not retain a cause for the purpose of administering full and complete relief in the absence of a finding that some equitable right of the plaintiff has been violated. Richardson v. Means, 22 Mo. 495; Shay v. New York Life Ins. Co., 354 Mo. 920, 192 S.W.2d 421; Wimer v. Wagner, 323 Mo. 1156, 20 S.W.2d 650, 79 A.L.R. 1231; Miller v. St. Louis & K.C.R. Co., 162 Mo. 424, 63 S.W. 85; Endler v. State Bank & Trust Co. of Wellston, 352 Mo. 961, 180 S.W.2d 596; Schopp v. Schopp, 162 Mo.App. 558, 142 S.W. 740; Modern Woodmen of America v. Cummins, 216 Mo.App. 404, 268 S.W. 383; Real Estate Inv. Co. v. Winn, 233 Mo.App. 26, 116 S.W.2d 550; Hallauer v. Lackey, 353 Mo. 1244, 188 S.W.2d 30; Oetting v. Green, 350 Mo. 457, 166 S.W.2d 548; Rose v. Houser, 206 S.W.2d 571. (3) There is no finding that any equitable right of the respondents was violated by the appellant.
Louis E. Miller, Miller & Landau, B. Sherman Landau for respondents.
The respondents brought this action in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for the abatement of a nuisance and they further sought damages by reason of the alleged nuisance in the sum of $ 1500 for actual damages and $ 1500 for punitive damages. There was only one count in respondents' petition. The trial court refused to grant the injunction but awarded the respondents $ 500 for actual damages and one dollar for punitive damages. The respondents did not appeal from that judgment but the appellants duly took an appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court held that the suit was in equity for the abatement of a nuisance, and that since the trial court had held that respondents were not entitled to any equitable relief it was without jurisdiction to award any damages on purely legal issues. It reversed the judgment. A full statement of the facts may be found in the opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, reported in 206 S.W. 2d 991.
The point on which the St. Louis Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court was not briefed in that court by either party. We ordered the cause transferred for review on the application of respondents who have not filed a brief in this court so we do not have a brief of respondents on this point. Since the respondents seek to set aside the judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, they are, from a practical standpoint, in the shoes of an ordinary appellant in this court. They have failed to brief the main point on which they rely for a reversal of the St. Louis Court of Appeals' holding. However, we will not dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with our rule 1.08 because of the public interest in this procedural question.
The decree of the trial court will suffice for a statement of facts. It reads as follows:
From the decree, it will be seen that in paragraphs 7 and 8 the trial court found that respondents had suffered damages to their fence which required them to expend sums of money for the repair and replacement of it. In paragraph 9 the court found that the market value of respondents' property had depreciated on account of the noise and fumes of the motor vehicles of appellant's customers who used its service lot. In paragraph 11 it found that respondents had sustained actual damages in the sum of $ 500. By paragraph 3 of the judgment the trial court denied the equitable relief sought by respondents in the prayer of their petition. So we have a judgment denying any equitable relief, yet finding that respondents sustained legal damages.
In ruling this case the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that a court of equity does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment for a plaintiff on legal issues in the absence of a finding that some equitable right of the plaintiff has also been violated. We approve that holding. It is supported by the decisions of this court. Miller v. St. Louis & K.C.R. Co., 162 Mo. 424, 63 S.W. 85; Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. State Highway Commission, 322 Mo. 419, 17 S.W. 2d 535; Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp. v. American Taxicabs, 344 Mo. 1200, 130 S.W. 2d 601.
In respondents' suggestions in support of their motion to transfer this cause to this court they contend that under our new code all distinctions between an action in equity and an action at law have been eliminated. They cite Sections 2 and 4 of the new code. Mo. R.S.A., 847.2 and 847.4. Section 2 of the new code says: "It shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley
...not come within the jury trial guarantee. Hammons Ehney, 924 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Mo. banc 1996);6 see also Krummenacher v. Western Auto Supply Co., 358 Mo. 757, 217 S.W.2d 473 (1949); Lee v. Conran, 213 Mo. 404, 111 S.W. 1151 The question can be posed in one of two ways: what is an action at l......
- Monahan v. Stewart
-
Shultz v. Kline
...parties will be made by equity. The rule relied on by the court has a well established corollary stated in Krummenacher v. Western Auto Supply Co., 358 Mo. 757, 217 S.W.2d 473, 475(1) (banc 1949): ". . . a court of equity does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment for a plaintiff on le......