Woodson v. Leo-Greenwald Vinegar Co

• Decision Date: 31 July 1924
• Docket Number: 22707
• Citation: 264 S.W. 674
• Parties: WOODSON v. LEO-GREENWALD VINEGAR CO
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

264 S.W. 674

WOODSON v. LEO-GREENWALD VINEGAR CO

No. 22707

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 31, 1924

Culver & Phillip, of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Ben J Woodson and Strop & Mayer, all of St. Joseph, for respondent.

All concur, except WOODSON, J., not sitting.

OPINION

GRAVES, J.

This case comes here from the Kansas City Court of Appeals. That court by an undivided opinion reversed the judgment of the lower court, which was for the plaintiff. The original opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals was certified to this court along with the following:

'On Motion for Rehearing.

'Plaintiff claims that the holding herein is contrary to that in the cases of Columbia Brewing Co. v. Patrick Berney, 90 Mo.App 96, and Barr v. Lake, 147 Mo.App. 252, 126 S.W. 755, and asks that the case be certified to the Supreme Court. Both of said cases are by the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Defendant seems willing that this court be pursued. It is therefore ordered that the cause be certified on the grounds requested.'

The foregoing is the only thing in the shape of a certificate transferring this case to this court. Neither the court as a whole, nor one of the judges thereof certify that the opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals (involved herein) is in conflict with the two cases mentioned. All this certificate says, is, that the plaintiff claims a conflict and asks that the case be certified to this court, and the defendant does not object to the cause being certified. In other words the parties agree that the cause can be certified, and the court certifies. This certificate does not conform to section 6 of the amendment of 1884 to our Constitution. Rodgers v. Fire Insurance Co., 186 Mo. loc. cit. 250-252, 85 S.W. 369. Had the court said that it was of the opinion that the opinion or decision, which the Kansas City Court of Appeals rendered, was in conflict with the two cases mentioned from the St. Louis Court of Appeals, then we would have jurisdiction. In the case, supra, we have ruled that a certificate thus made by the whole court is within the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution. But the certificate here involved is neither within the spirit nor the letter of the Constitution. The Constitution contemplates that either one of the Judges, or the whole court, shall say there is a conflict, when the alleged conflict is, as between two Courts of Appeals, as here. The court...