Sehested v. Kansas City

Decision Date09 June 1902
Citation68 S.W. 1068
PartiesSEHESTED et al. v. KANSAS CITY.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; Edward P. Gates, Judge.

Action by Charles Sehested and others against Kansas City. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Dismissed.

Clarence S. Palmer and Fred H. Wood, for appellant. R. J. Ingraham, Chas. B. Adams, and Wash Adams, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action which was brought against the defendant on a contract, and in which the plaintiffs had judgment, and the defendant appealed. The merits of the case cannot be considered by us, for the reason that the affidavit required for an appeal by statute (section 808, Rev. St.) nowhere appears in the record before us. Clelland v. Shaw, 51 Mo. 440; State v. Wooldridge, 83 Mo. 193; Same v. Roscoe, 93 Mo. 146, 6 S. W. 117; Lengle v. Smith, 48 Mo. 276. And further, the order granting the appeal was to the effect that "defendant files affidavit for an appeal from the judgment and decision of the court in this cause, and upon consideration thereof the court grants and allows defendant an appeal in this cause as prayed for." This was insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal. In order to give it jurisdiction of an appeal, such an appeal must be prayed for by the party desiring to appeal, and must be allowed by the court from which the appeal was taken. It may be that the affidavit which was filed by the defendant in the trial court did not designate the court where the appeal was asked to be sent, and, if so, it was the duty of such trial court to have designated the proper court in its order. There was no appeal granted to this court. The filing of the record in this court was the act of the defendant, and the right to bring the case to this court by appeal cannot be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State ex rel. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Broaddus
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1908
    ... ... 544 210 Mo. 1 STATE ex rel. TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST COMPANY v. BROADDUS et al., Judges Kansas City Court of Appeals Supreme Court of Missouri February 27, 1908 ...           ... State ex ... rel. v. Woodson, 128 Mo. 514; Peters v. Edge, ... 87 Mo.App. 283; Sehested v. Kansas City, 68 S.W ... 1068; Thomas v. Finley, 3 Mo. 288; Railroad v ... Powell, 104 ... ...
  • The State ex rel. Brown v. Broaddus
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1909
    ... ... S ... 1899, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to taking an appeal in ... any case. Sehested v. Kansas City (Mo. App.), 68 ... S.W. 1068; State ex rel. v. Broaddus (Mo. Sup.), 108 ... S.W ... ...
  • Haskell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 1912
    ...for appeal was filed. Shemwell v. McKinney, 214 Mo. 692; Wright v. Seiffle, 214 Mo. 694; Greenwood v. Parlin, 98 Mo.App. 407; Schested v. Kansas City, 68 S.W. 1068; v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625. The court sustained respondent's motion for a new trial for the reason "that the court committed error......
  • Ivie v. Ewing
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1906
    ... ... JOEL EWING, Administrator, etc., Respondent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityMay 7, 1906 ...          May 7, ...           Appeal ... from Schuyler ... citation or authorities upon this point as the court is ... familiar with the rule. See Sehested v. Kansas City, ... 68 S.W. 1068, and numerous decisions of the appellate courts ... of this ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT