Strother v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 17917.,17917. |
| Citation | 268 Mo. 429,187 S.W. 1195 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STROTHER v. MISSOURI, K. & T. R. CO. |
Action by Homer S. Martin against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Company. To review an order sustaining defendant's motion for new trial, Sam B. Strother, administrator of plaintiff's estate, in whose name the cause was revived after plaintiff's death, brings error. Writ of error quashed.
Homer S. Martin recovered judgment against the defendant in error for $14,000 as damages for personal injuries. A motion for a new trial on the part of the defendant was sustained. From the order sustaining that motion the plaintiff came to this court on a writ of error. Since the writ issued the plaintiff died, and the cause has been revived in the name of his administrator.
Yates & Mastin and Geo. B. Strother, all of Kansas City, for plaintiff in error.
Defendant in error makes the point that the propriety of the trial court's action in sustaining a motion for a new trial cannot be listed under a writ of error. We think the point well taken. Section 2054 of our Revised Statutes provides for a writ of error only on a final judgment. Section 2038 gives the right to appeal from an order granting a new trial from an interlocutory judgment in an action of partition and in other cases there mentioned. Those sections were construed in Kroeger v. Dash, 82 Mo. App. 332, in a short but sound opinion, holding that a writ of error cannot be brought on an order granting a new trial, for the reason that such order is not a final judgment. That opinion was cited with approval by this court in Padgett v. Smith, 205 Mo. 122, 103 S. W. 942.
The writ of error issued herein is quashed.
The foregoing opinion of ROY, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridge v. Wittman
...though Section 1018, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929, authorizing appeals is much broader. [Kroeger v. Dash, 82 Mo.App. 332; Strother v. Martin, 268 Mo. 429.] We think it the latter, for the finality of the judgment in this case was suspended until the court ruled on the motion for new tr......
-
State v. Woerner
...Kroeger v. Dash, 82 Mo. App. 332; Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Peper, 96 Mo. App. 595, 70 S. W. 910. See, also, Strother, Adm'r, v. Railway Co., 268 Mo. 429, 431, 187 S. W. 1195; Higdon v. Ming (Mo. App.) 236 S. W. 384, 386. Plaintiffs in error had their right of appeal and failed to take a......
-
Ridge v. Wittman
...though Section 1018, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929, authorizing appeals is much broader. [Kroeger v. Dash, 82 Mo. App. 332; Strother v. Martin, 268 Mo. 429.] We think it was the latter, for the finality of the judgment in this case was suspended until the court ruled on the motion for n......
- Strother v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Co.