The State v. Gross
| Decision Date | 18 December 1924 |
| Citation | 275 S.W. 769,306 Mo. 1 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. CHARLES GROSS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Worth Circuit Court; Hon. John M. Dawson Judge.
Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.
DuBois & Miller, Ed. Kelso, Cook & Cummins, and Shinabargar, Blagg & Ellison for appellants.
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, for respondent.
This suit was tried in the Circuit Court of Worth County, Missouri, based upon a forfeited bail bond for the sum of $ 1000, given for the appearance of the defendants to answer a criminal charge. The exact nature of the charge does not clearly appear, but that is entirely immaterial in so far as this case is concerned. The defendants failed to appear hence this suit was brought, and the trial resulted in favor of the State in the sum of $ 1000 and costs. After moving unsuccessfully for a new trial, the defendants duly appealed the cause to this court and it was assigned to Division One. In due time the case reached Court in Banc, and counsel for defendants filed a motion asking to have the cause moved to Division Two, because it is a criminal case, or to the Kansas City Court of Appeals because it is a civil case and involves no constitutional question, nor an amount to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the suit.
This motion is based upon the majority opinion in the case of State of Missouri v. Wilson, 265 Mo. l. c. 23. In that opinion we held by a divided court that the case was essentially a criminal case because the bond was given in a criminal case and therefore the proceedings in scire facias were also criminal in character; but three of the judges, Graves, Brown and Bond, JJ., took the opposite view and held that it was a civil action, because the bond was the result of a contract and in no sense involved a crime.
I concurred in the majority opinion, but since that opinion was handed down, I have changed my mind, and now believe that the suit is a civil action, and that neither one of the divisions of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that no crime is involved, no constitutional question is presented for determination, nor is the amount involved sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. I therefore think the majority opinion in the case of State v. Wilson, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Foster
-
Gray v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
...243 S.W. 439; Thomassen v. Water & Light Co. (Mo. App.) 251 S.W. 450; Lambert v. Wells (Mo. App.) 264 S.W. 37; Miller v. Smith (Mo. App.) 275 S.W. 769; McMahon v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 277 S.W. 356. We are mindful, too, that to convict the deceased of contributory negligence as......
-
State v. Henderson
... ... too general to preserve anything for review. Sec. 4125, R.S ... 1939; State v. Austin, 29 S.W.2d 686; State v ... Bowers, 29 S.W.2d 58; State v. Peters, 123 ... S.W.2d 34. (5) The court did not err by not notifying ... defendant of the forfeiture of his recognizance. State v ... Gross, 306 Mo. 1, 275 S.W. 769; State v ... Wilson, 265 Mo. 1, 175 S.W. 603; Sec. 3973, R.S. 1939 ... (6) Appellant was not denied a fair and impartial trial ... because Juror remained silent when asked if she knew ... appellant and his wife. State v. Jacobson, 348 Mo ... 258, 152 S.W.2d 1061; ... ...
-
State v. Norton
...v. Terrell, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 26, citing cases and overruling the Hughes case, supra, insofar as in conflict therewith. State v. Gross, Banc, 306 Mo. 1, 275 S.W. 769, held scire facias proceedings for the enforcement of forfeited bail bonds were civil actions, adopting the dissenting and over......