Howell v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.

79 Mo. App. 260, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 273
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 7, 1899
StatusPublished

This text of 79 Mo. App. 260 (Howell v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.) 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
Howell v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co., 79 Mo. App. 260, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

BIGGS, J.

In a proceeding to revive a judgment before a justice of the peace will an appeal lie to the circuit court ? That is the only question presented by this record. The plaintiff obtained a judgment of revivor before the. justice, the defendant appealed, and on motion of plaintiff the circuit court dismissed the appeal. The defendant has appealed from the order of dismissal.

[262]*262Right of appeal. [261]*261The statute governing appeals in justices of the peace courts reads: “Any person aggrieved by any judgment rendered by a justice of the peace, except a judgment by [262]*262confession, may, in person or by agent, make his appeal therefrom, unless otherwise provided by law, to the circuit court of the same county where the judgment was rendered.” * * * R. S. 1889, sec. 6327. The statutory definition of a judgment (R. S. 1889, sec. 2206), is as follows: “A judgment is the final determination of the right of the parties in the action.” A sowe facias to revive a judgment is an action or civil suit (Milsap v. Wildman, 5 Mo. 425; State v. Hoeffner, 124 Mo. 488; Simpson v. Watson, 15 Mo. App. 425; Wolff v. Schaeffer, 4 Mo. App. 367; Kratz v. Preston, 52 Mo. App. 251), and the judgment of revival is treated as a new judgment (Walsh v. Bosse, 16 Mo. App. 231). Under the decisions in the , . _ ,, foregoing cases we think it clear that the defendant had the right of appeal. The appellate courts of the state have recognized such a right. Indeed it has never been questioned. Humphreys v. Lundy, 37 Mo. 320; Barhydt v. Alexander, 59 Mo. App. 188; Kincaid v. Griffith, 64 Mo. App. 673.

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.

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

Related

Milsap v. Wildman
5 Mo. 425 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1838)
Wolff v. Schaeffer
4 Mo. App. 367 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)
Walsh v. Bosse
16 Mo. App. 231 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Kratz v. Preston
52 Mo. App. 251 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
T. W. Barhydt & Co. v. G. N. Alexander & Co.
59 Mo. App. 188 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Humphreys v. Lundy
37 Mo. 320 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1866)
State v. Hoeffner
28 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Simpson v. Watson
15 Mo. App. 425 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Kincaid v. Griffith
64 Mo. App. 673 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 Mo. App. 260, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railway-co-moctapp-1899.