Paul v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis

• Citation: 140 S.W. 1196
• Parties: PAUL v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
• Decision Date: 07 November 1911
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

140 S.W. 1196

PAUL v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 7, 1911.

Rehearing Denied November 25, 1911.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. Withrow, Judge. Action by George M. Paul against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. Judgment for defendant was affirmed on appeal by the Springfield Court of Appeals (152 Mo. App. 577, 134 S. W. 3), and transferred by the Supreme Court to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

Hall & Dame, for appellant. T. E. Francis and R. E. Blodgett (Boyle & Priest, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but it was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of an act of the Legislature approved June 12, 1909. See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396. See, also, section 3939, R. S. 1909. Afterwards the Springfield Court of Appeals disposed of the case through an opinion prepared by Judge Nixon of that court, which may be found reported under the title of Paul v. Railroad, 152 Mo. App. 577, 134 S. W. 3. Subsequently the Supreme Court declared the legislative act which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from one Court of Appeals to another for hearing and determination to be unconstitutional, as will appear by reference to the cases of State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S. W. 336, State ex rel. Dressed Beef, etc., Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538, and State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S. W. 342. Because of such ruling of the Supreme Court, the case was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court, on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were coram non judice. The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. On examination of the several arguments advanced for a reversal of the judgment, we are prepared to concur in the views of the Springfield Court, heretofore expressed thereon, and therefore adopt as the statement of facts and the opinion of this court the opinion above referred to in the same case, which, as before stated, is reported under the title of Paul v. Railroad, 152 Mo. App. 577, 134 S. W. 3. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered. All concur.