State ex rel. Brown v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 05 March 1940
• Docket Number: 36920
• Citation: 137 S.W.2d 544,345 Mo. 958
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of Rose C. Brown, Relatrix, v. William C. Hughes, William Dee Becker and Edward J. McCullen, as Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

137 S.W.2d 544

345 Mo. 958

State of Missouri at the relation of Rose C. Brown, Relatrix, v. William C. Hughes, William Dee Becker and Edward J. McCullen, as Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals

No. 36920

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 5, 1940

Opinion and judgment of Court of Appeals quashed.

R E. Kleinschmidt for relatrix.

(1) In holding that it was not necessary for the trial court to give plaintiff's declaration of law No. 1, or to definitely indicate the theory upon which it based its judgment, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with the following controlling decisions of the Supreme Court, to-wit Dollarhide v. Mabary, 125 Mo. 1997; Suddarth v Robertson, 118 Mo. 286; Falvey v. Hicks, 315 Mo. 442, 286 S.W. 391; Swanson v. Ins. Corp., 121 S.W.2d 788. (2) In holding that the judgment of the trial court, which adjudicated title in favor of a defendant in an ejectment suit who had not asked for any affirmative relief, was not coram non judice and void but "was in all respects responsive to the issues in the case" and proper, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with the following controlling decisions of the Supreme Court, to-wit: Hecker v. Bleish, 319 Mo. 179, 3 S.W.2d 1019; Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. v. Donovan, 147 Mo. 622. (3) The judgment of the trial court should never include more than is asked for in the pleading of the party in whose favor it is rendered, and in affirming the judgment adjudicating title in favor of a defendant who had asked merely to be dismissed from plaintiff's cause of action, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with the following controlling decision of the Supreme Court, to-wit: Baxter v. Weber, 295 Mo. 554, 246 S.W. 236; Roden v. Helm, 192 Mo. 89. (4) In affirming a judgment which purported to adjudicate title to real estate, the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction and its opinion is in conflict with the following controlling decisions of the Supreme Court, to-wit: Ballenger v. Windes, 338 Mo. 1039, 93 S.W.2d 882; Gibbany v. Walker, 342 Mo. 160, 113 S.W.2d 794; Federal Land Bank v. Bross, 116 S.W.2d 6; Frederich v. Tobaben, 117 S.W.2d 251; Wakefield v. Dinger, 130 S.W.2d 490. (5) The Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction in affirming a judgment which purported to adjudicate title to real estate, and certiorari is the proper remedy to confine an appellate court within the limits of its constitutional and legal authority. State ex rel. Pemberton v. Shain, 124 S.W.2d 1087.

Edgar & Matthes for respondents.

The opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in holding that the judgment rendered by the trial court was responsive to the issues in the case, does not conflict with the controlling decisions of this Court. Ballenger v. Windes, 93 S.W.2d 882; Clarkson v. Stanchfield, 57 Mo. 573; Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.2d 77; Gibbany v. Walker, 121 S.W.2d 321.

Tipton, J. All concur, except Hays, J., who concurs in result only.

OPINION

TIPTON

This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review the record in the case of Brown v. Wilson, decided by respondents, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and reported in 131 S.W.2d 848.

Relatrix (plaintiff) filed an action in ejectment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri. From a judgment which was rendered in favor of the defendant, relatrix was allowed an appeal to this court. The parties to that action filed in this court a stipulation asking us to transfer the cause to the St. Louis Court of Appeals because title to real estate was not involved. We sustained this stipulation and transferred the cause.

We are of the opinion that we erred in sustaining the stipulation, as we will later show that the jurisdiction is in this Court and not in the Court of Appeals because title to real estate is involved as evidenced by the judgment rendered in the circuit court. [Art. VI, Sec. 12 of the Missouri Constitution.] "Such being the case no act of the parties either by agreement or estoppel can confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals. [Klingelhoefer v. Smith, 171 Mo. 455, 71 S.W. 1008.] Certiorari is the proper remedy to confine an appellate court within the limits of its constitutional and legal authority. [Art. VI, Sec. 3, Const. of Mo., and Sec. 8 of the Amendment of 1884, Mo. Stat. Ann.; State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. Hostetter, 336 Mo. 391, 79 S.W.2d 463, and cases therein cited.]" [State ex rel. Pemberton et al. v. Shain et al., 344 Mo. 15, 124 S.W.2d 1087, l. c. 1088.]

Relatrix's petition in circuit court was in conventional form, alleging that she was the owner in fee simple of the land in question, that she was entitled to possession, and that the defendant was wrongfully withholding the possession thereof from her. The petition did not ask that title to the land be determined. Defendant's answer was a denial that relatrix was the owner in fee simple and that defendant was unlawfully withholding possession thereof from relatrix and further alleged that he had purchased the land from his predecessors in title as shown by a deed dated March 26, 1918. He also claimed title through adverse possession. He did not ask the court to determine title.

Therefore, under the pleadings the judgment sought did not involve title within the meaning of the Constitution. We have ruled that "cases involving title to real estate within the meaning of the constitutional provision fixing our jurisdiction are cases in which the judgment sought or rendered will directly affect or operate upon the title itself. In cases where neither party asks that title be adjudicated, yet it is necessary for the court to ascertain which party has title in order to render the judgment asked for by the pleadings, the title is incidentally or collaterally and not directly involved, and for that reason we would not have jurisdiction in such a case." (Italics ours.) [Ballenger v. Windes, 338 Mo. 1039, 93 S.W.2d 882, l. c. 883. See also Gibbany v. Walker, 342 Mo. 156, 113 S.W.2d 792; Federal Land Bank v. Bross, 116 S.W.2d 6; Frederich v. Tobaben, 117 S.W.2d 251; Wakefield et al. v. Dinger et al., 130 S.W.2d 490.]

The test of whether or not title to real estate is directly involved has been stated as follows: "'The judgment sought or rendered must be such as will directly...