State ex rel. Hartley v. Rombauer
| Decision Date | 07 November 1895 |
| Parties | The State ex rel. Hartley v. Rombauer et al., Judges |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Peremptory writ awarded.
George Robertson for relator.
W. W Fry for respondents.
Mandamus.
This is a proceeding by mandamus, the object of which is to have respondents, who are the judges of the St. Louis court of appeals, transfer to this court the cause of Benjamin Hartley, appellant, against L. C. Hartley, respondent.
The writ charges in substance that, on the fourth day of November, 1892, Benjamin Hartley commenced his suit in the circuit court of Audrain county against relator L. C. Hartley to recover a sum of money which was stated to be in excess of $ 2,500; that defendant by answer denied any indebtedness whatever; that on the trial of the issues plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove that defendant was indebted to him in a sum exceeding $ 2,500; that judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appealed and caused a transcript of the record and proceedings to be filed in the office of the clerk of the St. Louis court of appeals, which court assumed to take jurisdiction of the case, heard the appeal, reversed the judgment, and directed the circuit court to enter a judgment for plaintiff for $ 750; that relator afterward filed a motion in said court of appeals asking that the cause be transferred to the supreme court, claiming that the amount in dispute was such that it alone had jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the motion was denied. The writ commanded the respondents as judges of said court to show cause why said case should not be transferred.
Respondents, after a general return to the effect that the amount in dispute between the parties is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of said court of appeals, make this specific return:
It appears from the record in said cause that the case was in equity to charge defendant as trustee for money and other property entrusted to him. An itemized account is set out in the petition and the amount therein claimed is $ 3,784. The prayer asked that a referee be appointed with direction to take an account and that plaintiff have judgment "for such sum as may be just." The answer denied any indebtedness whatever.
The evidence shows that plaintiff was a man eighty years of age. Defendant was his son. Plaintiff testified that he moved from a farm to Mexico in 1886 after which defendant lived with him. His evidence concerning the financial transactions between himself and son was not at all definite. He did testify, however, that when he came to Mexico he had not less than $ 3,000, which went into the hands of defendant and had not been accounted for. The evidence offered by defendant tended to prove that but small sums ever came into his hands belonging to plaintiff and that he had fully accounted to him. The judgment was for defendant and the appeal was taken by plaintiff.
The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals wherein "the amount in dispute" exceeds the sum of $ 2,500. The jurisdiction is determined by the real amount in dispute and not necessarily the amount that appears from the pleadings to be in dispute. Much of the matter put in issue by the pleadings may be eliminated before the appeal is taken. The appeal is heard upon the whole record and the appellate court can look to that in order to determine its jurisdiction. Thus, it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial