Pickel v. Pickel

• Decision Date: 16 July 1913
• Citation: 159 S.W. 775,176 Mo. App. 714
• Parties: PICKEL v. PICKEL et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

159 S.W. 775

176 Mo. App. 714

PICKEL v. PICKEL et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 16, 1913.

COURTS (§ 231) — APPELLATE COURTS — JURISDICTION.

Plaintiff having recovered in a suit to enforce a judgment for maintenance, the Supreme Court on appeal reversed the judgment, modified it in part, and as modified affirmed it. On the mandate being lodged in the circuit court, further proceedings were had there, at the conclusion of which plaintiff perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court, at which time the circuit court set aside an injunction theretofore issued in favor of plaintiff, and approved a bond tendered by defendants conditioned to compensate any claim which plaintiff might establish in her suit, and also issued an order restraining plaintiff from causing any execution to issue against defendants, or either of them, to be levied on any of the property described in the decree, and from selling the same so long as the cause was pending in any appellate court. Held, that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction of an appeal from such latter order pending plaintiff's appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the appeal from such order would be transferred to the Supreme Court, as provided by Rev. St. 1909, § 3938.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Ella M. Pickel against William Pickel and others. From a restraining order issued by the trial court against plaintiff, who had prevailed, she appeals. Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.

See, also, 158 S. W. 8.

Barclay, Fauntleroy, Cullen & Orthwein, of St. Louis, for appellant. Randolph Laughlin, of St. Louis, for respondents.

NORTONI, J.

This appeal is from a restraining order issued by the trial court against plaintiff, who had prevailed in the suit.

It appears plaintiff sued her husband under the statute for maintenance, and recovered. By its judgment the trial court awarded her $100 a month, to be paid by her husband in installments for the support of herself and minor child. To evade the payment of the maintenance so decreed, plaintiff's husband, Frederick Pickel fraudulently transferred his property to his father, William Pickel. Thereafter plaintiff instituted this suit to the end of setting aside such fraudulent conveyance of property, and to sequester the same to compensate her judgment for maintenance. She prevailed at the trial, and defendants prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court, for the reason that tribunal alone had jurisdiction of the cause; the amount in dispute exceeding by far the appellate jurisdiction of this court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment on that appeal, modified it in part, and as so modified affirmed it. See Pickel v. Pickel, 243 Mo. 641, 147 S. W. 1059. But, upon the mandate being lodged in the circuit court, further proceedings were had there, at the conclusion of which plaintiff perfected an appeal to the...