State v. Jahnke, No. 15372.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtArnold
PartiesSTATE v. JAHNKE.
Docket NumberNo. 15372.
Decision Date15 June 1925
273 S.W. 155
STATE
v.
JAHNKE.
No. 15372.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
June 15, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

[273 S.W. 156]

Proceeding in juvenile division of circuit court by the State of Missouri, in respect to the custody of Mary Monica Jahnke, minor. Motion by Walter C. Jahnke to set aside a nunc pro tune order vesting custody of the minor in Mamie Mulloy was overruled, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Jay L. Oldham, of Kansas City, for appellant.

John V. Hill and A. A. Ridge, both of Kansas City, for the State.

ARNOLD, J.


This is an action arising in the juvenile division of the circuit court of Jackson county. The facts appearing are that Mary Monica Jahnke is a minor, 14 years of age. In 1913 her father and mother were divorced; the father obtaining the decree, and custody of the child, Mary, being awarded to the mother, Catherine L. Jahnke, who died in 1918. In 1916 the mother surrendered Mary to the jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the circuit court, upon the ground that the child was neglected by her father, Walter C. Jahnke, by reason of his failure to support her. After the death of her mother, the girl was again surrendered into the jurisdiction of the said court by her aunt, Mamie Mulloy, and on September 3, 1920, she was given temporarily into the custody of her said aunt, and the cause was continued for further hearing until September 10, 1920, on which date the court finally committed the child to her said aunt.

As shown by the abstract of the record, the records of said court did not show the order made by the court on September 10, 1920, and, for the purpose of correcting the error in this respect, Mrs. Mulloy instituted a proceeding to that end in the juvenile court on behalf of said minor. The court sustained her motion filed January 18, 1924, to correct the record of September 10, 1920, nunc pro tune, and the correction of the record was made accordingly on January 21, 1924, as of date September 10, 1920. And afterwards, to wit, on the 22d day of January, 1924, the attorney for Walter C. Jahnke filed herein a motion to set aside said order, as follows:

"Comes now Walter C. Jahnke, father and natural guardian of the above-named Mary Monica Jahnke, and moves the court to set aside the order nunc pro tunc made by this honorable court on January 21, 1924, in the above-entitled cause, as of date of September 10, 1920, vesting the custody of said Mary Monica Jahnke in Mamie Mulloy, for the following reasons, to wit:

"(1) That there is no competent evidence preserved by some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • R---, In Interest of, No. 8015
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 28, 1962
    ...compliance with the applicable statute is required. In re C-----, Mo.App., 314 S.W.2d 756, 759(2); State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155. And, the Juvenile Act being a complete law or code within itself dealing with minors under the age of seventeen years, 1 Section 211.261 (quoted......
  • J.L.H., In Interest of, No. WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1983
    ...as in other cases, are purely statutory in origin and require strict compliance with the statutes. State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155, 156 (Mo.App.1925). Despite the fact that this precise language is not in this Notice of Appeal, in an effort to determine this matter on its mer......
  • C, In re, No. 7689
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 9, 1958
    ...appeal is purely statutory and at least substantial compliance with the applicable statute is required. State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155. Section 211.261 provides that '(a)n appeal shall be allowed to the child from any final judgment, order or decree made under the provisions......
  • K.W. v. Missouri Div. of Family Services, No. 49573
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1985
    ...vests in a parent a right to appeal on his or her own behalf--a right which did not formerly exist. See State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155 (1925). The legislature did not, however, vest in any of the other named parties (such as the legal custodian) a right to appeal with the be......
4 cases
  • R---, In Interest of, No. 8015
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 28, 1962
    ...compliance with the applicable statute is required. In re C-----, Mo.App., 314 S.W.2d 756, 759(2); State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155. And, the Juvenile Act being a complete law or code within itself dealing with minors under the age of seventeen years, 1 Section 211.261 (quoted......
  • J.L.H., In Interest of, No. WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1983
    ...as in other cases, are purely statutory in origin and require strict compliance with the statutes. State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155, 156 (Mo.App.1925). Despite the fact that this precise language is not in this Notice of Appeal, in an effort to determine this matter on its mer......
  • C, In re, No. 7689
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 9, 1958
    ...appeal is purely statutory and at least substantial compliance with the applicable statute is required. State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155. Section 211.261 provides that '(a)n appeal shall be allowed to the child from any final judgment, order or decree made under the provisions......
  • K.W. v. Missouri Div. of Family Services, No. 49573
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1985
    ...vests in a parent a right to appeal on his or her own behalf--a right which did not formerly exist. See State v. Jahnke, 221 Mo.App. 366, 273 S.W. 155 (1925). The legislature did not, however, vest in any of the other named parties (such as the legal custodian) a right to appeal with the be......

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