Wilson v. Russler
Citation | 63 S.W. 370,162 Mo. 565 |
Parties | WILSON et al. v. RUSSLER et al. |
Decision Date | 21 May 1901 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Action by W. F. Wilson & Son against Charles Russler and others. On motion to remand the case for hearing of plaintiffs' appeal from judgment for defendants to the Kansas City court of appeals, from which it was transferred to the supreme court for apparent lack of jurisdiction. Case remanded.
Silver & Brown, for appellants. Edwards & Edwards and L. A. Schirmer, for respondents.
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants on three promissory notes, executed by defendants to plaintiffs. Two of the notes were for $500 each, and the other for $160. The defendants pleaded a breach of the contract in which the notes had their origin, and averred they were damaged $2,000, for which they asked judgment as a counterclaim. Defendants recovered judgment for $1,160, and plaintiffs appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals. The court ordered the cause transferred to this court because the notes and interest of plaintiffs, added to the counterclaim of defendants, makes a sum in excess of $2,500, the maximum jurisdiction of the court of appeals prior to the passage of the act of March 20, 1900, increasing it to $4,500. It is now the settled law that, in determining whether jurisdiction of an appeal is vested in this court or one of the courts of appeal, the court will look into the record and ascertain the sum actually in dispute, and will not be governed by the prayers of the petition and answer alone. Milling Co. v. Walsh, 97 Mo. 287, 11 S. W. 217; State v. Lewis, 96 Mo. 148, 8 S. W. 770. Now, as plaintiffs are the appellants here, in so far as the counterclaim can govern, the amount of defendants' judgment on that, or $1,160, if that alone were involved, would control. On their appeal from the judgment against them on their notes, the amount of the notes and interest at the date of the appeal, less the conceded credits, will be the amount to be considered. Both parties agree that at the time the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee District
...instrument and determine what sum is involved and at issue at the date of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. [Wilson v. Russler, 162 Mo. 565, 63 S.W. 370; Wolff v. Matthews, 98 Mo. 246, 11 S.W. Milling Co. v. Walsh, 97 Mo. 287, 11 S.W. 217; State ex rel. King v. Gill, 107 Mo. 44, ......
-
Higgins v. Smith
... ... affecting the real amount in disputed. [State ex rel. v ... Reynolds (Banc), 245 Mo. 698, 704(d), 151 S.W. 85, ... 87(d); Wilson v. Russler (Banc), 162 Mo. 565, 567, ... 63 S.W. 370; Keleher v. Johnson (Banc), 272 Mo. 699, ... 701, 199 S.W. 935; Kingshighway Presbyterian ... ...
-
Bingaman v. Hannah
...heard upon the whole record and the appellate court can look to that in order to determine its jurisdiction." See, also, Wilson v. Russler, 162 Mo. 565, 63 S.W. 370, to the same The Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Duncan, 224 Mo. 661, 123 S.W. 856, used this language: ". . . this court cannot e......
-
Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee Dist.
...the whole instrument and determine what sum is involved and at issue at the date of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. Wilson v. Russler, 162 Mo. 565 ; Wolff v. Matthews, 98 Mo. 246 ; Milling Co. v. Walsh, 97 Mo. 287 ; State ex rel. King v. Gill, 107 Mo. 44 . The prayer of this pe......