Peters v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 02 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 7159.,7159. |
| Citation | 241 S.W. 463 |
| Parties | PETERS v. SIMPSON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert Hall, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Ernst A. Peters against Edward E. Simpson. Plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court, to which the action was removed from a justice's court, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Robert M. Zeppenfeld, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Thomas L. Anderson, of St. Louis, for respondent.
Unlawful detainer. Plaintiff seeks to recover the possession of certain real estate situated in the city of St. Louis together with damages for withholding the same. The cause originated before a justice of the peace and by certiorari was removed to the circuit court, where following a trial by a jury plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. Defendant appeals.
It is conceded that the record contains no evidence showing the property involved was located within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice. That this is a necessary jurisdictional fact to be pleaded and proven is established by the cases of Backenstoe v. Railway Co., 86 Mo. 492; Bonner-Miller Mfg. Co. v. Silverman (Mo. App.) 196 S. W. 376; Obernier v. Williams et al. (Mo. App.) 226 S. W. 42.
It is argued by plaintiff (respondent) that in deciding the Bonner-Miller and Obernier. Cases this court overlooked the fact that by virtue of the statute (sections 2947 and 2948, R. S. 1919), which authorizes the circuit judges of the city of St. Louis to create and determine the boundary lines of the justice districts, the said judges can take judicial notice of the fact that the property involved was situated within a certain district, and hence proof of such fact is unnecessary in such case.
While it is true that under section 2947 the circuit judges of the city with other city judges named in the act divide the city into districts and by their act define and fix the metes and bounds of said districts, and while it is also true that under the provisions of section 2948 all courts, including the appellate courts, shall take judicial notice of the boundaries of said districts as fixed by the said judges, it does not follow that the court can take judicial notice of the fact that a certain piece of property lies within the boundaries of a particular district. The act of the judges under the statute goes no further than to fix the metes and bounds of the district.
Courts cannot take judicial knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfersberger v. Hoppenjon
... ... Bonner ... Mfg. Co. v. Silverman, 196 S.W. 378; Obernier v ... Williams, 226 S.W. 42; Peters v. Simpson, 241 ... S.W. 463; State ex rel. Harris v. Galloway, 24 ... S.W.2d 711. (c) Judge Pollock was wholly without jurisdiction ... of the ... ...
-
Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Lapresto
...were within that district, and the judgment for plaintiff was reversed and the cause remanded. And later in the case of Peters v. Simpson, Mo.App., 241 S.W. 463, this Court held that it must be pleaded and proven that the property involved was located within the territorial jurisdiction of ......
-
McIlvain v. Kavorinos
...376; Young Women's Christian Ass'n. v. LaPresto, Mo.App., 169 S.W.2d 78; Obernier v. Williams et al., Mo.App., 226 S.W. 42; Peters v. Simpson, Mo.App., 241 S.W. 463. See State ex rel. Brown v. Bird, 228 Mo.App. 800, 73 S.W.2d 821, and Davis v. Gerson, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 727. While there is......
-
McIlvain v. Kavorinos
...376; Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. LaPresto, Mo.App., 169 S.W.2d 78; Obernier v. Williams et al., Mo.App., 226 S.W. 42; Peters v. Simpson, Mo.App., 241 S.W. 463. See also State ex rel. Brown v. Bird, 228 Mo.App. 800, 73 S.W.2d 821, and Davis v. Gerson, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 727. While ther......