Nadler v. Continental Ins. Co., 35578
| Decision Date | 18 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 35578,35578 |
| Citation | 511 S.W.2d 446 |
| Parties | Theodore H. NADLER and Jane Nadler, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Niedner, Moerschel, Nack & Ahlheim, St. Charles, for defendant-appellant.
Gallego & Mueller, Troy, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Defendant-appellant appeals from an order of the circuit court denying defendant's motion to bring in third party defendants. The issue is whether an order denyant's motion to bring in third party defendants is an appealable order. We hold that such an order is not appealable and dismiss the appeal.
Plaintiffs-respondents sued defendant for payment of a claim under a homeowners policy issued to plaintiffs by defendant. The claim ensued from an explosion in plaintiffs' gas furnace, and, after defendant's denial of the claim, suit followed. Defendant filed a motion to bring in as third party defendants those who had installed and manufactured the furnace and certain of its parts. The motion was denied by the court, and this appeal followed.
Appeals are creatures of statutes, and without underlying statutory authority, there is no right to an appeal. Seiter v. Tinsley, 503 S.W.2d 38 (Mo.App.1973); Holmes v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 488 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1972). We find no statutory authority for an appeal from an order denying a motion to bring in third party defendants.
In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Armacost Motors, Inc., 502 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.1973), it was said l.c. 331:
'Section 512.020, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., is the basic statutory provision granting the right to appeal in civil cases. Essentially the right to appeal from a final judgment has been granted to the aggrieved party. Certain orders are expressly made appealable, to-wit: An 'order granting a new trial, or order refusing to revoke, modify, or change an interlocutory order appointing a receiver or receivers, or dissolving an injunction, or from any interlocutory judgments in action of partition which determine the rights of the parties, or * * * from any special order after final judgment in the cause; * * *.' The order here involved does not fall within any of those categories. The order is obviously not a final judgment, inasmuch as it does not dispose of 'all the parties and all the issues in the case."
Thus, before an order is ripened for appeal it must dispose of all the issues and all the parties to the case....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AAA Excavating, Inc. v. Francis Const., Inc.
...was dismissed. This appeal ensued. AAA Excavating, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal relying on Nadler v. Continental Insurance Co., 511 S.W.2d 446 (Mo.App.1974) in which this court held that an order denying third party plaintiff's motion to bring in third party defendants was ......
-
Four Seasons Racquet and Country Club Property Owners Ass'n v. Abrams, 18192
...Appeals are creatures of statutes and without underlying statutory authority, no right to appeal exists. Nadler v. Continental Ins. Co., 511 S.W.2d 446 (Mo.App.1974). The basic statute which grants Defendant the right to appeal is § 512.020, which provides in pertinent Any party to a suit a......
-
Ray Nolting Oldsmobile Co. v. 66 Watson Development Co., 35296
...order of May 9 did not dispose of defendants' counterclaims. Therefore, it was not a final, appealable order. Nadler v. Continental Insurance Co., 511 S.W.2d 446 (Mo.App.1974); Brown Supply Co. v. J. C. Penney Co., 505 S.W.2d 463 Generally, as suggested by defendant, under Rule 75.01 the tr......