State v. Rombauer

• Decision Date: 12 November 1894
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS, K. C. & C. R. CO. v. ROMBAUER et al., Judges.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

28 S.W. 75

124 Mo. 598

STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS, K. C. & C. R. CO. v. ROMBAUER et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 12, 1894.

SUPREME COURTS — JURISDICTION.

The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment setting aside a judgment of condemnation.

Petition by the state, on the relation of St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado Railroad Company, for a writ prohibiting R. E.

Rombauer and others, judges of the St. Louis court of appeals, from entertaining jurisdiction of an appeal. Writ allowed.

L. F. Parker, for relator.

MACFARLANE, J.

On the petition of relator, a rule on respondents, as the judges of the St. Louis court of appeals, was ordered, requiring them to show cause why they should not be prohibited from entertaining jurisdiction of an appeal from the Franklin circuit court, in the case of Joseph T. Perkins against relator, the St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado Railroad Company. Respondents have made return to the rule. Upon the pleadings, relator asks that the writ of prohibition be made absolute. It appears from the pleadings that, by proceedings regularly had, relator obtained a judgment of the circuit court condemning certain lands of the said Perkins for the right of way of its railroad, and in the same proceedings a judgment was rendered in favor of the said Perkins for $1,350 damages, but certain of the costs were adjudged against him. The amount of the damages was duly paid into court, and relator took possession of the land condemned, and constructed its railroad thereon. That afterwards the said Perkins commenced his suit in equity to set aside and annul the said judgment of condemnation on the ground that the part of it adjudging the costs against him was procured by fraud on the part of the relator. The issues in this case were found for the plaintiff, and a decree was rendered setting aside said judgment, as being fraudulent and void, from its date. It was further decreed, in substance, that plaintiff recover of defendant $1,350, as damages for taking his land for right of way, and that the title to the land taken be vested in fee simple in defendants. In due time, relator filed its affidavit for an appeal. The transcript was, by order of the circuit court, filed in the St. Louis court of appeals, of which respondents are judges, and that court claims to have appellate jurisdiction of the case.

The question we are asked to determine is whether a condemnation proceeding and...