Smith v. McClard
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52940,No. 1,52940,1 |
| Citation | 426 S.W.2d 109 |
| Parties | Joel Grady SMITH and Ledia Ann Smith, Respondents (Plaintiffs), v. O. D. McCLARD and Stella McClard, Appellants (Defendants) |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Paul McGhee, Dexter, for respondents.
Claude Arnold, Dexter, for appellants.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
This case involves an action in two counts. Count I was in ejectment and for damages. Count II sought an injunction against the locking of a gate which barred plaintiffs from access to their land. A jury's verdict was for plaintiffs on Count I, with damages assessed at $50.00. The court found for plaintiffs on Count II and entered an injunction. After the motion for new trial had been overruled, defendants appealed. On this appeal, appellants state that this court has jurisdiction because title to real estate is involved within the meaning of § 3 of Article V, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S. According to appellants, the appeal is from '(1) a judgment based upon a verdict of the jury involving title to a strip of ground * * * on Count I of respondents' Petition wherein they claim a 'recovery of said premises,' while defendants claim title to said strip of land by adverse possession as set forth in their First Amended Answer * * *.'
Respondents, in their brief, point out that neither the petition nor the answer sought an adjudication of title and that the judgment does not, on its face, purport to adjudicate title. Respondents suggest that in view of the nature of the relief sought and the judgment entered, this court may not have jurisdiction of this appeal. We must first resolve this question.
Count I was in ejectment in conventional form. It alleged ownership by plaintiffs of the disputed premises and sought recovery of the premises and damages. Count II alleged that defendants had locked a gate across a bridge by which plaintiffs gained access to their land. The petition alleged that plaintiffs had the lawful right to use the bridge and that the locked gate constituted a nuisance to plaintiffs. The prayer of Count II was for an injunction 'to abate said nuisance' and to enjoin defendants 'from maintaining said nuisance and obstruction.'
Defendants' answer denied generally the allegations of Count I of the petition. The answer further alleged that defendants were the owners of the premises in dispute by reason of adverse possession. The answer to Count I also asserted that the actual boundary line between the property of plaintiffs and defendants was a fence which partially bounded the land in dispute. The answer to Count II admitted that defendants had locked the gate, but alleged that the gate was located exclusively on defendants' land, asserting title by adverse possession, and denied that plaintiffs had any right to use the gate or bridge. The answer asked generally for judgment for defendants on both counts of the petition.
The case was tried to a jury as to Count I, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, assessing plaintiffs' damages at $50.00. As shown by the transcript, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs by reciting the jury's verdict. No judgment for possession was entered. On Count II, the court found for plaintiffs 'and grants the injunction for and sets Supersedeas Bond at $500.00 for delay in injunction pending trial motions * * *.'
For a case to involve title to real estate within the meaning of § 3 of Article V, conferring appellate jurisdiction on this court, the judgment sought or rendered must directly affect or operate upon title to real estate so as to determine it adversely to one litigant and in favor of another. Nettleton Bank v. Estate of McGauhey, 318 Mo. 948, 2 S.W.2d 771. Prior to 1936, this court considered an action in ejectment to involve title to real estate within the jurisdictional grant to this court, because it was 'necessary for the court to determine which party had legal title to the real estate in order to determine which was entitled to possession.' Williams v. Maxwell, Mo.Sup., 82 S.W.2d 270, 272--273. In 1936, in the case of Ballenger v. Windes, 338 Mo. 1039, 93 S.W.2d 882, the court concluded that an action for ejectment in which neither party sought a judgment adjudicating title and in which the only judgment entered was for possession did not adjudicate a title controversy and therefore an appeal in such case was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. See also Gibbany v. Walker, 342 Mo. 156, 113 S.W.2d 792. Such has been the rule followed since 1936. Townsend v. Lawrence, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 55; City of St. Charles v. De Sherlia, Mo.Sup., 303 S.W.2d 32, 34--35(2--4); Luttrell v. State Highway Commission, Mo.Sup., 367 S.W.2d 615, 618(3).
Appellants have not seen fit to suggest any reason why such rule should not be applied in this case. The only case cited in their jurisdictional statement, Moss v. James, Mo.App., 403 S.W.2d 661, was for an injunction to enjoin a trespass in which the defendant filed a counterclaim, asserting ownership of the land involved, and sought an adjudication of his title, which the trial court did determine in favor of the defendant. As the court pointed out, the 'judgment both sought and rendered directly involved title to real estate in an appellate jurisdictional sense.' 403 S.W.2d 662(2, 3). If such were the case here, no problem of jurisdiction would be presented to us. Obviously, such is not this case. In this case, the appellants sought no affirmative adjudication of their asserted ownership, the trial court's judgment did not by its terms pass on the issue and, although they do say that the judgment should have been in their favor on their defense of adverse possession, appellants assert no error by reason of the trial court's failure to adjudicate title in them.
Respondents have advanced theories on which they suggest that the jurisdiction of this court might be based, e.g., the parties impliedly tried the issue of title and this court can amend the judgment to decide the issue. However, we cannot acquire jurisdiction by an amendment of the judgment below, if our jurisdiction must depend upon either the judgment entered or the relief asked. See Hoelmer v. Heiskell, 359 Mo. 236,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. McClard
...Article V, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S., so as to confer jurisdiction upon that court, was not involved. See Smith v. McClard, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 109. The appeal was transferred to this A brief statement of the general facts is all that is necessary. Plaintiffs own an 80 acre ......
-
State v. Ortega
...to grant the relief appellant sought, this court acquired no jurisdiction to review the matter appealed on its merits. Smith v. McClard, 426 S.W.2d 109, 111 (Mo.1968); Sumnicht v. Sackman, 968 S.W.2d 171, 174 The effect of a suspended imposition of sentence is discussed in State v. Bachman,......