Trout v. Laclede Gaslight Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1911
• Parties: TROUT v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

140 S.W. 1198

TROUT v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 7, 1911.

Rehearing Denied November 25, 1911.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Charles Claflin Allen, Judge. Action by Eugenia V. Trout against the Laclede Gaslight Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed on appeal by the Springfield Court of Appeals (151 Mo. App. 207, 132 S. W. 58), and transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

Percy Werner, for appellant. J. E. Turner and Jos. A. Wright, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, but it was transferred to this court under the provisions of an act of the Legislature approved June 12, 1909. See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 397. See, also, section 3937, R. S. 1909. It was thereafter transferred by this court 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. In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Nixon of that court, as will appear by reference to Trout v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 151 Mo. App. 207, 132 S. W. 58. Subsequently the Supreme Court declared the legislative act approved June 12, 1909 (Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396, section 3939, R. S. 1909), which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court 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. St. Louis 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. The cause 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. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments for a reversal of the judgment, we are persuaded that the statement of facts and the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly dispose of the controversy. In this view, the opinion of Judge Nixon, delivered in the Springfield Court of Appeals, which may be found reported under the title of Trout v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 151 Mo. App. 207, 132 S. W....