Bray v. Marshall

66 Mo. 122
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 66 Mo. 122 (Bray v. Marshall) 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
Bray v. Marshall, 66 Mo. 122 (Mo. 1877).

Opinion

Hough, J.

— This was an action of ejectment. The petition and answer were filed in the circuit court of Dade county, where the lands in controversy are situate. The subsequent proceedings were had in Greene circuit court. No order of the Dade circuit court founded upon the written consent of the parties to the removal of the cause to Greene county, as provided in the 4th section of the 3d article of the Practice Act, nor any order changing the venue in pursuance of the statute in relation to the change of venue in civil cases, is to be found in the record. The appellant now insists that the circuit court of Greene county never acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and that the proceedings therein were coram non judice.

The objection that the circuit court had not jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, may be made for the first time in this court. As the land sued for was situate in Dade county, the subject-matter of the action was not originally within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Greene county, and it could only acquire jurisdiction thereof by operation of law. The consent of the parties could not confer it. An order of tb e circuit court of Dade county, transferring the cause to the Greene circuit court, was indispensably necessary to confer upon the latter court jurisdiction to try the cause. Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534, 544.

As no such order appears in the record, the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded to the circuit court of Greene county, to be disposed of according to law.

The other judges concur.

Reversed.

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

Related

Rice v. Griffith
161 S.W.2d 220 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Kelly v. Trimble
247 S.W. 1009 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Stansbury v. Stansbury
94 S.W. 566 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Thomasson v. Mercantile Town Mutual Insurance
89 S.W. 564 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. Hord
46 S.W. 753 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Mitchell Planing Mill Co. v. Short
58 Mo. App. 320 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Collier v. Wilson
56 Mo. App. 420 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Third National Bank v. Garton
40 Mo. App. 113 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Snitjer v. Downing
80 Mo. 586 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Fields v. Maloney
78 Mo. 172 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 Mo. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-marshall-mo-1877.