City of St. Louis v. Robinson

55 Mo. App. 256, 1893 Mo. App. LEXIS 287
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1893·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

55 Mo. App. 256 (City of St. Louis v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hezel
39 S.W. 781 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Steffen v. City of St. Louis
36 S.W. 31 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Northcutt v. Eager
33 S.W. 1125 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)