Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Hill
Decision Date | 15 July 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 47078,No. 1,47078,1 |
Citation | 326 S.W.2d 65 |
Parties | SECURITIES ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leonard L. HILL, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Casemore, Berman & DeLeve, Gene A. DeLeve, Kansas City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Blackford, Imes, Compton & Brown, Roy W. Brown, Haskell Imes, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
HOLMAN, Commissioner.
Defendant has appealed from a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $603.21. His basic contention is that he was unlawfully deprived of a trial by jury in this cause. A determination of that contention will involve paragraph 4 of Rule 2 of the rules of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which reads as follows:
We will first consider the question of our appellate jurisdiction. The sole basis for the contention that appellate jurisdiction is in this court is stated by defendant in his jurisdictional statement as follows:
In order to properly understand the questions presented we will briefly state the procedure followed in this case. The suit (upon a promissory note) was originally filed in the magistrate court where a judgment was entered for plaintiff in the sum of $603.21 on May 25, 1956. On May 28, defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Jackson County and on the following day the transcript was filed in the office of the circuit clerk of that county. On July 3, 1956, plaintiff listed the cause as a jury-waived case. On July 6, defendant filed a written request for a jury trial and deposited $15 with the clerk. No order appears in the record concerning that request, but on the face of the instrument is written in ink, 'O.K., HAR,' which defendant contends indicates that the request was approved by Honorable Henry A. Riederer, presiding judge of that court.
On January 3, 1958, the cause was assigned to Division 5. On January 13, 1958, the cause came on for trial in said division, at which time plaintiff's counsel called the attention of the court to Rule 2 of the rules of the Circuit Court of Jackson County (heretofore set out) and took the position that the parties had waived a jury under the provisions of said rule, and moved that the case be transferred from the trial docket for jury cases to the docket for jury-waived cases, pursuant to said rule. The court sustained plaintiff's motion and announced that the case would proceed to trial without a jury. Thereupon, defendant filed an application for change of venue, which was sustained, and the cause was transferred to Division No. 3. On January 15, 1958, defendant filed a 'Motion to Transfer Cause from the Contested Docket to Jury Trial Docket.' That motion, after setting out the procedure followed in the case up to that point, alleged as follows: Said motion was overruled by the court on January 17, 1958.
Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the supreme court which petition was denied on March 10, 1958. On June 12, 1958, the cause came on for trial and the defendant at that time filed a 'Demand for Jury Trial' in which he contended that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to Secs. 10 and 22(a) of Article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and that he had not waived his right to a jury trial under the provisions of Section 510.190 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Said demand was overruled.
The case then proceeded to trial and the defendant not only refused to participate in the trial but he and his counsel left the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...case, otherwise it will be waived." Meadowbrook Country Club v. Davis, 384 S.W.2d 611, 612 (Mo.1964), quoting Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 326 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.1959). A party asserting the unconstitutionality of a statute or ordinance bears the burden of supporting that contention ......
-
Blair v. City of Hannibal
...and orderly procedure will admit under the circumstances of the given case, otherwise it will be waived." Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Hill , 326 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo. 1959). A party asserting the unconstitutionality of a statute bears the burden of supporting their contention by at least re......
-
Litzinger v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.
...with good pleading and orderly procedure. In this case, the challenge made by plaintiff clearly came too late. Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, Mo., 326 S.W.2d 65, 66; State v. Brookshire, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 497, 500. But in any event we think the reasoning set forth in the cases upon whic......
-
Thompson v. City of St. Peters
...case, otherwise it will be waived.’ " Meadowbrook Country Club v. Davis , 384 S.W.2d 611, 612 (Mo. 1964) (quoting Secs. Acceptance Corp. v. Hill , 326 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo. 1959) ). " ‘The critical question in determining whether waiver occurs is whether the party affected had a reasonable opp......