State v. Musick
| Decision Date | 02 April 1912 |
| Citation | 145 S.W. 1184 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. O'MALLEY v. MUSICK et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George H. Shields, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of Margaret O'Malley, against John U. Musick and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred to Springfield Court of Appeals, and reversed. 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398. Retransferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals. Reversed.
Frank H. Braden, Geo. W. Lubke, and George W. Lubke, Jr., for appellants. Thos. D. Cannon and F. C. O'Malley, for respondent.
The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but it was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of an act of the Legislature approved June 12, 1909. See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396. See, also, section 3939, R. S. 1909. Afterwards the Springfield Court of Appeals disposed of the case through an opinion prepared by Presiding Judge Nixon of that court, which may be found reported under the title of State ex rel. v. Musick, 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398. Subsequently the Supreme Court declared the legislative act which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from one Court of Appeals to another for hearing and determination to be unconstitutional, as will appear by reference to the cases of State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S. W. 336, State ex rel. Dressed Beef, etc., Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538, and State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S. W. 342. Because of such ruling of the Supreme Court, the case was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court, on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here, and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were coram non judice.
The case has been argued and submitted here, and duly considered. On examination of the several arguments advanced for a reversal of the judgment, we are prepared to concur in the views of the Springfield Court, heretofore expressed thereon, and therefore adopt as the statement of facts and the opinion of this court the opinion above referred to in the same case, which, as before said, is reported under the title of State ex rel. v. Musick, 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398.
We concur in the view expressed in the opinion above referred to, and, for the reasons suggested therein, the judgment should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Faucett
...by mere silence was not enough" to toll the statute. This opinion was subsequently adopted by the St. Louis Court of Appeals, 165 Mo.App. 214, 145 S.W. 1184, 1185, after our decision in State ex rel. O'Malley v. Nixon et al., 233 Mo. 345, 138 S.W. 342. In the case of State ex rel. Fehrenbac......
-
State v. Logan
...damage." The case most relied on by defendant is that of State ex rel. v. Musick, 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398, s. c., 165 Mo. App. 214, 145 S. W. 1184, a suit on a notary's bond for falsely certifying the acknowledgment of a deed. In that case the court held that there is no statutory pr......
-
State v. Faucett, 6306.
...Margaret O'Malley v. John U. Musick, 145 Mo.App. 33, 130 S.W. 398. This opinion was adopted by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in 165 Mo.App. 214, 145 S.W. 1184. Another case very interesting and very much in point, written by Judge Sturgis, of this court, is State ex rel. v. Logan, 195 Mo.A......
-
State ex rel. Moore v. Weathers
...statute defining a cause of action where the latter statute carries its own special period of limitation. State ex rel. O'Malley v. Musick, 165 Mo.App. 214, 145 S.W. 1184; id. 145 Mo.App. 33, 130 S.W. 398. And it has been stated by the Supreme Court of Missouri that '* * * it has been held ......