Smith v. Oliver
| Decision Date | 12 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 36356.,36356. |
| Parties | SMITH v. OLIVER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Callaway County; W. M. Dinwiddie, Judge.
Action by Willard Smith against Mary C. Oliver, administratrix of the estate of Amelia Simcoe, deceased, and others, involving issue as to whether plaintiff was adopted son and heir of deceased. From an adverse judgment, the defendants appeal.
Cause transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
W. D. Whitlow and T. A. Faucett, both of Fulton, and Cave & Hulen and A. D. Sappington, all of Columbia, for appellants.
D. M. Cuthbertson and Baker & Baker, all of Fulton, for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Callaway county, Missouri, decreeing Willard Smith to be the adopted son and heir of Amelia Simcoe, deceased. Mrs. Simcoe's estate consisted entirely of personal property and was appraised at the value of $12,543.33. The "amount in dispute," not the appraised value of the estate, must exceed $7,500 to vest appellate jurisdiction of the instant review here. There is no attempt of record to establish the amount of allowed demands, outstanding unallowed demands, the reasonable expenses incurred or to be incurred in the administration, or other possible deductions from the appraised value of the estate to the payment of which the distributive share of the estate to plaintiff or to the defendants would be subject. With our courts of appeal having general appellate jurisdiction and the supreme court having only limited appellate jurisdiction, the logic of the situation requires, as has been repeatedly held, that jurisdiction on appeal vest in the court having general appellate jurisdiction unless the record affirmatively establish beyond conjecture that jurisdiction is in the court having only limited appellate jurisdiction. Higgins v. Smith, Banc, 346 Mo. 1044, 144 S.W.2d 149; Whitworth v. Monahan's Estate, 339 Mo. 1123, 100 S.W.2d 460; Aurien v. Security Nat. Bank, Mo.Sup., 129 S.W.2d 1047; Winn v. Matthews, Mo. Sup., 130 S.W.2d 484, among others. An examination of this record indicates the wisdom of our holdings. Upon cross-examination of one witness for impeachment purposes, it developed that she had a claim of "almost $4,000" pending against the estate. There was no attempt to show that other claims did not exist. We may take judicial notice that certain items, not here involved, are chargeable against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Madole
-
Bostian v. Milens
...$ 7500 is involved. Whitworth v. Monahan's Estate, 339 Mo. 1123, 100 S.W.2d 460; Higgins v. Smith, 346 Mo. 1044, 144 S.W.2d 149; Smith v. Oliver, 148 S.W.2d 795; Nies v. Stone, 108 S.W.2d 349. (2) Neither is a federal question involved in the jurisdictional sense. The validity or constituti......
-
Freeman v. De Hart, 29750
...339 Mo. 1123, 100 S.W.2d 460; Bostian v. Milens, 354 Mo. 153, 188 S.W.2d 945; Nies v. Stone, Mo.Sup., 108 S.W.2d 349; Smith v. Oliver, Mo.Sup., 148 S.W.2d 795; In re Ellis' Estate, Mo.Sup., 127 S.W.2d 441; Aurien v. Security Nat. Bank Savings & Trust Co. of St. Louis, Mo.Sup., 129 S.W.2d At......
-
Smith v. Oliver
...plaintiff, the named defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, and that court transferred the cause to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, 148 S.W.2d 795. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the Decree reversed in part. W. B. Whitlow and T. A. Faucett, both of Fulton, and Cave & Hulen of Columbia, for ......