Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Inc., 22477
| Decision Date | 08 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 22477,22477 |
| Citation | 301 S.W.2d 406 |
| Parties | Saraphin VOGRIN, Appellant, v. FORUM CAFETERIAS OF AMERICA, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles M. Miller, Kansas City, for appellant.
Howell & Rayburn, Norman S. Howell and John A. Weiss, Kansas City, for respondent.
This suit was brought by Saraphin Vogrin, appellant, to recover damages against the Forum Cafeterias, respondent, for personal injuries sustained by her as the result of falling on the public sidewalk on the west side of Main Street in front of respondent's cafeteria at 1212 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri, on August 16, 1953. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the theory of nuisance and prayed for damages in the sum of $20,000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 on February 2, 1956, and judgment was entered thereon. On February 3, 1956, respondent-defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict. This motion was by the court sustained on February 10, 1956, and judgment entered for the defendant. Thereafter and on the 13th day of February, 1956, the plaintiff, in due time, filed a motion for new trial, asking the court to set aside the verdict and judgment of February 2, 1956, and grant her a new trial, one of the grounds of which was that the verdict and judgment are inadequate as to the damages sustained and sued for by plaintiff. Thereafter and on February 17, 1956, the trial court overruled plaintiff's motion for a new trial. On the same day, plaintiff perfected her appeal to this court.
In her brief, plaintiff urges four general grounds of error, one of which is, that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for a new trial, because of the inadequacy of the verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
At the outset it is the duty of this court to examine the record and determine if it has jurisdiction even though the jurisdiction is not challenged. In the instant case the defendant did not challenge this court's jurisdiction. In the case of Briley v. Thompson, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 27, 29, the law is stated as follows:
Furthermore, as recently stated by the Springfield Court of Appeals in the case of Taney County v. Addington, 296 S.W.2d 129, 'Appellate jurisdiction may not be conferred by waiver, acquiescence or even express consent * * * it becomes our initial duty in each case to inquire into and determine our jurisdiction, sua sponte'.
This court is one of general appellate jurisdiction and the supreme Court is one of limited jurisdiction. The Constitution of 1945 of the State of Missouri, Article V, Section 3, V.A.M.S., provides that 'the supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases * * * where the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of seventy-five hundred dollars.' It was held by the Missouri Supreme Court in Beasley v. Athens, 277 S.W.2d 538, at page 539, that,
.
The initial question before this court is whether or not it has jurisdiction. The supreme court in the case of Thompson v. Healzer Cartage Co. 287 S.W.2d 791, at page 792, stated the law as follows:
'In this action plaintiff, the appellant here, sued for $75,000 for personal injuries. After verdict and judgment in the amount of $6,850, and after a motion for new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Co.
...rendered in the trial court. Glore v. Bone, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 633; Combs v. Combs, Mo., 284 S.W.2d 423, 424; Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Inc., Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 406, 409, and Mo., 308 S.W.2d 617. The amount prayed for was $27,500 and the amount recovered was $1,500; hence this co......
-
Langhammer v. City of Mexico, Mo.
...the smaller verdicts were reinstated in final disposition of the appeals. Glore v. Bone, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 633; Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 406; Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Mo., 308 S.W.2d 617; Sofian v. Douglas, 324 Mo. 258, 23 S.W.2d 126; Jones v. A......
-
Mitchell v. Mosher
...the transcript on appeal in this case has been read in its entirety and considered carefully. As in Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 406, 409 [Id., Mo., 308 S.W.2d 617], there has been no admission or indication that plaintiff would regard as adequate or reasonable......
-
City of Olivette v. Graeler
...v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 262 S.W.2d 1 at page 3; State ex rel. Thompson v. Roberts, Mo., 264 S.W.2d 314; Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Inc., Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 406. Article 5, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri 1945, V.A.M.S., grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Supr......