McCormack v. Dunn
Citation | 106 S.W.2d 933,232 Mo.App. 371 |
Parties | RUFUS McCORMACK AND ADA B. McCORMACK, RESPONDENTS, v. MARY AUGUSTA ARMOUR DUNN, APPELLANT |
Decision Date | 24 May 1937 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Allen C Southern, Judge.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Charles M. Miller for respondents.
Alpha N. Brown for appellant.
This cause was tried to the court November 27, 1935. At the close of the trial the court entered upon its records the following order:
On March 11, 1936, during the March term, entry was made in the cause on the "minute books of the court" as follows: "Cause having been heretofore heard and taken under adv. court now finds for deft. judg. v. Pltf. for costs."
Counsel for the parties appeared before the court on the next day, March 12, and the court said:
"The court of its own motion sets aside the judgment heretofore rendered on the 11th day of March, 1936, for the reason that a misunderstanding as to the submission of briefs and oral arguments has arisen between the attorneys, and the court will set the matter for further oral argument and briefs for Friday, March 20th, 1936, at two P. M."
On March 19, 1936, the plaintiff filed motion to dismiss the cause. On the same day the court entered upon its records the following order:
On April 27, 1936, the court entered upon its records the following order:
The defendant timely filed "motion to set aside the order setting aside the submission and dismissing the cause." The motion was denied. Defendant has appealed.
The defendant on May 1, 1937, filed motion entitled "Motion to set aside order setting aside submission and dismissing cause." The motion was overruled on May 9, 1937. The abstract of the record in narrative form states that on the same day "the appellant (defendant) filed her application and affidavit for appeal from the judgment and decision of the court. . . ." The affidavit for appeal recites ". . . that this appeal is not made for vexation or delay, but because the affiant believes the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decision of the court herein."
No appeal lies from that part of the order of April 27 setting aside the submission for the reason that the statute does not provide that appeal may be taken from such an order. [Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 87 S.W.2d 169; Myers et al. v. Faris (Floral Hills, Inc., Garnishee), 87 S.W.2d 455; Harriman v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co., 92 S.W.2d 593.]
The defendant claims that the dismissal was a final judgment, and that the order overruling the motion to set aside the order of April 27, was "a special order after final judgment." The dismissal was not a final judgment; it was not "the final determination of the right of the parties in the action." [Section 1070, R. S. 1929.] When a plaintiff is forced by adverse ruling to take an involuntary nonsuit he may, after proper motion has been overruled, take an appeal. No appeal lies for a voluntary dismissal or nonsuit, such as was ordered in the present case. [Turr v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 209 S.W. 908.]
In the case of State ex rel. v. Riley, 118 S.W. 647, the court considered the legal effect of the action of the trial court in the case of Potter v. Bullivant et al. The court after finding for the plaintiff on certain issues, appointed a referee to ascertain and determine the value of improvements on the land involved in the litigation. The referee made the report, and the defendants in the action filed exceptions. While these exceptions were pending, an order was made dismissing the cause. Potter, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McIlvain v. Kavorinos
...is not aggrieved does not have the right of appeal. Leonard v. Security Building Co., 179 Mo.App. 480, 162 S.W. 685; McCormack v. Dunn, 106 S.W.2d 933, 232 Mo.App. 371; Holdridge v. Marsh, 28 Mo.App. 293. (7) The and tenant relationship presupposes a valid contract between consenting minds.......
-
Fenton v. Thompson
...nonsuit. Arp v. Rogers, 99 S.W.2d 103; International Harvester Co. v. McLaughlin, 52 S.W.2d 227, 227 Mo.App. 221; McCormack v. Dunn, 106 S.W.2d 933, 232 Mo.App. 371; Piatt v. Heim & Overly Realty Co., 117 S.W.2d 342 Mo. 772; Stith v. J.J. Newberry Co., 79 S.W.2d 461, 336 Mo. 467. (3) If the......
-
McIlvain v. Kavorinos
... ... appellant Bessie Kavorinos is not an aggrieved party and her ... appeal must be dismissed. Leonard v. Security Bldg. Co., ... supra; McCormack v. Dunn, 232 Mo.App. 371, 106 ... S.W.2d 933. It would appear that an affirmance of the ... judgment or the dismissal of the appeal would have been ... ...
- Shane v. Lowden