Meyer v. Goldsmith
| Citation | 196 S.W. 745 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 19092.,19092. |
| Parties | MEYER v. GOLDSMITH et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William M. Kinsey, Judge.
Action by Alfred C. Meyer against David Goldsmith and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, on remand from the St. Louis Court of Appeals (185 Mo. App. 707, 171 S. W. 606), defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
David Goldsmith, of St. Louis, for appellants. Hickman P. Rodgers and Schulenburg & Diehm, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff, Meyer, brought suit in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against the defendant Goldsmith and others on two special tax bills against certain real estate in said city belonging to defendants. Upon a trial a judgment was rendered for defendants. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, 185 Mo. App. 707, 171 S. W. 606, which reversed the action of the trial court and remanded the case, with directions to the circuit court to enter judgment, declaring the tax bills liens upon the real estate of defendants. Upon the sending down of this mandate the circuit court entered judgment in conformity with same. From this judgment, after the overruling of a motion for a new trial, defendants, urging as a ground of jurisdiction the violation of certain constitutional provisions, appealed to this court.
The judgment appealed from was in effect and fact a judgment of the Court of Appeals. This being true, the circuit court had no other alternative than to comply with the mandate of the Court of Appeals, which it is conceded, was done. Keaton v. Jorndt, 259 Mo. loc. cit. 190, 168 S. W. 734; Viertel v. Viertel, 212 Mo. loc. cit. 574, 111 S. W. 579; Bank v. Donnell, 195 Mo. loc. cit. 569, 94 S. W. 516.
A motion for a new trial has no place in our procedure following the entry of a judgment under the circumstances here existing; and we expressly held in Scullin v. Railroad, 192 Mo. 1, 90 S. W. 1026, which ruling was subsequently approved in Meyer v. Bobb, 184 S. W. 105, that there is no appeal from a judgment entered in accordance with the mandate of an appellate court to which a case after trial has been appealed.
The attempted interjection of a constitutional question in an effort to assail the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is of no avail under the facts in this case.
There are only three methods known to our law by which a case, heard and determined by a Court of Appeals, may be reviewed by this court: One of these is by original writ under the superintending power of this court (section 12, art. 6, Constitution of Missouri section 8, Amendment 1884); another is by the certificate of one of the judges of such court that the ruling of the Court of Appeals contravenes a previous decision of another Court of Appeals or of this court; and still another by certiorari limited to the determination of the question as to whether or not the ruling of the Court of Appeals under consideration contravenes a last previous ruling of this court (article 6, § 6, Constitution of Missouri as amended in 1884).
The opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case was unanimous. No fact is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntosh v. Wiggins
...... the duty of entering the judgment as directed. Stump v. Hornback, 109 Mo. 273; Meyer v. Goldsmith, 196. S.W. 745; State ex rel. v. Lamb, 232 S.W. 983. (2). On this appeal from the decree entered below pursuant to the. mandate of ......
-
Prasse v. Prasse
...... the nature of the case may be disregarded. Sharkey v. McDermott, 91 Mo. 657; Buck v. Meyer, 195. Mo.App. 287. (2) It is the absolute duty of the trial court,. upon receiving a mandate of this court, to render such. judgment as complies ... Jorndt, 259 Mo. 179, 168 S.W. 734; Meyer v. Bobb. (Mo.), 184 S.W. 105; Essey v. Bushakra, 304 Mo. 231, 263 S.W. 405; Meyer v. Goldsmith (Mo.), 196. S.W. 745; Powell v. Bowen (Mo.), 240 S.W. 1085;. Gary Realty Co. v. Swinney, 317 Mo. 687, 297 S.W. 43; Hoelzel v. Chicago, R. I. & P. ......
-
Prasse v. Prasse
...Keaton v. Jorndt, 259 Mo. 179, 168 S.W. 734; Meyer v. Bobb (Mo.), 184 S.W. 105; Essey v. Bushakra, 304 Mo. 231, 263 S.W. 405; Meyer v. Goldsmith (Mo.), 196 S.W. 745; Powell v. Bowen (Mo.), 240 S.W. 1085; Gary Realty Co. v. Swinney, 317 Mo. 687, 297 S.W. 43; Hoelzel v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry.......
-
Hecker v. Bleish
...... Such proceedings were nullities, and the appeal ought to be. dismissed. Powell v. Bowen, 240 S.W. 1085; Meyer. v. Goldsmith, 196 S.W. 745; Scullin v. Railroad, 192 Mo. 1; Essey v. Bushakra, 304 Mo. 231. (2) Even if this appeal will lie, the only question. ......