City of St. Louis v. Robinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of St. Louis v. Robinson

55 Mo. App. 256, 1893 Mo. App. LEXIS 287

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 Mo. App. 256 (City of St. Louis v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of St. Louis v. Robinson, 55 Mo. App. 256, 1893 Mo. App. LEXIS 287 (Mo. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Biggs, J.

Under the constitutional amendment, establishing and limiting the appellate jurisdiction of this court, the supreme court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction of any cause wherein a political subdivision of the state is a party. The city of St. Louis is a political subdivision of the state, and, as it is the substantial party in the present action, we think that the appeal was improvidently taken to this court. City of St. Louis v. Bowler, 94 Mo. 630; Freeman v. St. Louis Quarry Co., 30 Mo. App. 362; Harman v. City of St. Louis, ante, p. 175. The case of City of St. Louis v. Bowler, supra, like the present case, was a suit to recover the penalty or fine for the alleged violation of a city ordinance. It was transferred by this court under a general order as required by the last constitutional amendment defining and regulating the jurisdiction of this court. An order will, therefore, be entered transferring this cause to the supreme court, and that the clerk of this court transmit the record with a copy of this order of transfer to the clerk of that court.

All the judges concur.

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

Biggs, J.

Under the constitutional amendment, establishing and limiting the appellate jurisdiction of this court, the supreme court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction of any cause wherein a political subdivision of the state is a party. The city of St. Louis is a political subdivision of the state, and, as it is the substantial party in the present action, we think that the appeal was improvidently taken to this court. City of St. Louis v. Bowler, 94 Mo. 630; Freeman v. St. Louis Quarry Co., 30 Mo. App. 362; Harman v. City of St. Louis, ante, p. 175. The case of City of St. Louis v. Bowler, supra, like the present case, was a suit to recover the penalty or fine for the alleged violation of a city ordinance. It was transferred by this court under a general order as required by the last constitutional amendment defining and regulating the jurisdiction of this court. An order will, therefore, be entered transferring this cause to the supreme court, and that the clerk of this court transmit the record with a copy of this order of transfer to the clerk of that court.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Mo. App. 256, 1893 Mo. App. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-robinson-moctapp-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack