Pittsburg Bridge Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Parties: PITTSBURG BRIDGE CO. v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 546

205 Mo. 176

PITTSBURG BRIDGE CO. v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 29, 1907.

APPEAL—JURISDICTION—AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY—DETERMINATION.

The Supreme Court, in determining its jurisdiction of an appeal, will examine the whole record, and will not be controlled alone by the pleadings and judgment, and on determining that the amount in actual dispute is less than $4,500, notwithstanding the amount apparently in dispute on the face of the pleadings exceeds that sum, and that the judgment was rendered for a sum in excess thereof, the case will be transferred to the Court of Appeals; that court, under Laws 1901, p. 107, having jurisdiction of appeals where the amount in dispute does not exceed $4,500.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warwick Hough, Judge.

Action by the Pittsburg Bridge Company against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Cause certified to the St. Louis Court of Appeals for determination.

Boyle & Priest and Glendy B. Arnold, for appellant. Abbott & Edwards, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

Defendant appeals here from a judgment against it for $5,789.30. Plaintiff held a contract to reconstruct a certain power station belonging to defendant for so much money; a day being set for full performance, and $50 per diem named for failure in time. Alleging performance, it sued for $7,043.97, the balance due on that contract. Defendant answered, denying owing plaintiff that sum, or any other sum. Referring to the contract counted on, defendant pleaded full payment of the contract price. Further referring to the contract, defendant pleaded a counterclaim in two items: First, for $4,300 damages for 86 days' delay in performing the contract after the day set for full performance; and, second, for certain extra work, $142.74. The reply put in issue the new matter. With cross-claims and pleadings in this fix (both parties denying liability), the amount in dispute at the beginning was the amount claimed in the petition, plus the two items of the counterclaim, aggregating $11,486.71. Presently the case came on for trial before Judge Hough, sitting as a jury, and the parties litigant did not stand on the amount in dispute outlined in the pleadings. To the contrary, defendant admitted it owed plaintiff on the building contract the sum sued for, and plaintiff admitted it owed defendant the smaller of the two items of the counterclaim. This left the amount in dispute the first item of defendant's counterclaim, to wit, $4,300. That issue was threshed out at the trial. To that issue the evidence was limited. To that issue the instructions were directed. On that issue the court made its finding. It found that defendant was entitled to damages at $50 a day for 37 days' delay, aggregating $1,850. To this sum it added the admitted item of $142.74, with interest, aggregating $2,006. It deducted the ascertained and determined amount of defendant's counterclaim from the amount admitted to be due plaintiff, and rendered judgment for the difference. From that judgment plaintiff took no appeal; defendant alone appealing, as said. So much for the amount in dispute below.

In this court the case is presented by abstracts, statements, and briefs on both sides, on the theory that the balance on the contract price is not in dispute; that the smaller item in defendant's counterclaim is not in dispute; and that (as plaintiff took no appeal) the allowance of damages in the sum of $1,850 for 37 days' delay on the larger item of the counterclaim is no longer in dispute. The single bone of contention is the issue whether defendant was entitled to damages for 86 days' delay in performing the contract, as claimed in the answer, or the 37 days allowed by the court. As there is no federal or constitutional question raised, and the title to real estate is not involved, our jurisdiction must hinge on the amount in dispute. Laws 1901, p. 107. We are given jurisdiction in all cases where the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of $4,500. In determining the amount in dispute, we may look within the mere shell of the pleadings and judgment—the mere...