Beuttenmuller Ex Rel. Beuttenmuller v. Vess Bottling Co. of St. Louis

Supreme Court of Missouri

Beuttenmuller Ex Rel. Beuttenmuller v. Vess Bottling Co. of St. Louis

395 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Mo. LEXIS 672

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedNovember 8, 1965

Docket51435

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 395 S.W.2d 204 (Beuttenmuller Ex Rel. Beuttenmuller v. Vess Bottling Co. of St. Louis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beuttenmuller Ex Rel. Beuttenmuller v. Vess Bottling Co. of St. Louis, 395 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Mo. LEXIS 672 (Mo. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Patricia Rose Beuttenmuller, a minor, and her father, Paul A. Beuttenmuller, sued Vess Bottling Company of St. Louis (Vess) and The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., a corporation (A & P), for $25,000 for personal injuries to Patricia (Count I) and for $2,000 for medical expenses expended by her father (Count II). The action is alleged to arise from injuries sustained by Patricia when a bottle manufactured by Vess exploded in a store operated by A & P.

Defendant A & P filed a separate motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition does not state claims upon which relief can be granted against it. This motion to dismiss was sustained and a subsequent motion to set aside the order sustaining the motion to dismiss was overruled.

Defendant Vess filed a separate answer and also has filed a separate motion to dismiss . or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The transcript on appeal does not show any disposition of the motion to dismiss or the case in chief as to defendant Vess, and the reply to our direct inquiry of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis states that the Vess motion “has not been ruled on and is still pending in this court.”

Plaintiffs’ appeal is from- the order dismissing their petition against defendant A & P, and although the issue has not been raised, it is our duty to determine whether there is a final appealable judgment disposing of all parties and issues in this cause. Pizzo v. Pizzo, 365 Mo. 1224, 295 S.W.2d 377, 379 [1-3].

The motion to dismiss of defendant A & P was concerned only with whether the petition stated a claim as to that particular defendant, and the ruling on the motion was no broader. Such an order of dismissal did not affect the action as against defendant Vess who had also filed a motion to dismiss and an answer. The cause was thus at issue, pending and undisposed of as to defendant Vess; and there being no judgment disposing of all parties and issues, there is no final judgment and the appeal is premature. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., Mo., 215 S.W.2d 444, 445 [1, 2]; State ex rel. *206 Thompson v. Terte, 357 Mo. 229, 207 S.W.2d 487, 489 [1, 2].

The appeal is dismissed.

HOUSER and WELBORN, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by HIGGINS, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Patricia Rose Beuttenmuller, a minor, and her father, Paul A. Beuttenmuller, sued Vess Bottling Company of St. Louis (Vess) and The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., a corporation (A & P), for $25,000 for personal injuries to Patricia (Count I) and for $2,000 for medical expenses expended by her father (Count II). The action is alleged to arise from injuries sustained by Patricia when a bottle manufactured by Vess exploded in a store operated by A & P.

Defendant A & P filed a separate motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition does not state claims upon which relief can be granted against it. This motion to dismiss was sustained and a subsequent motion to set aside the order sustaining the motion to dismiss was overruled.

Defendant Vess filed a separate answer and also has filed a separate motion to dismiss . or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The transcript on appeal does not show any disposition of the motion to dismiss or the case in chief as to defendant Vess, and the reply to our direct inquiry of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis states that the Vess motion “has not been ruled on and is still pending in this court.”

Plaintiffs’ appeal is from- the order dismissing their petition against defendant A & P, and although the issue has not been raised, it is our duty to determine whether there is a final appealable judgment disposing of all parties and issues in this cause. Pizzo v. Pizzo, 365 Mo. 1224, 295 S.W.2d 377, 379 [1-3].

The motion to dismiss of defendant A & P was concerned only with whether the petition stated a claim as to that particular defendant, and the ruling on the motion was no broader. Such an order of dismissal did not affect the action as against defendant Vess who had also filed a motion to dismiss and an answer. The cause was thus at issue, pending and undisposed of as to defendant Vess; and there being no judgment disposing of all parties and issues, there is no final judgment and the appeal is premature. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., Mo., 215 S.W.2d 444, 445 [1, 2]; State ex rel. *206 Thompson v. Terte, 357 Mo. 229, 207 S.W.2d 487, 489 [1, 2].

The appeal is dismissed.

HOUSER and WELBORN, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by HIGGINS, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 S.W.2d 204, 1965 Mo. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beuttenmuller-ex-rel-beuttenmuller-v-vess-bottling-co-of-st-louis-mo-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack