Opening of Essex Avenue v. Mermod

44 Mo. App. 288, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 138
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 24, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 Mo. App. 288 (Opening of Essex Avenue v. Mermod) 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
Opening of Essex Avenue v. Mermod, 44 Mo. App. 288, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 138 (Mo. Ct. App. 1891).

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.

The defendant in the circuit court asked that his appeal be sent to the supreme court, claiming that the cause involved title to real estate, and the construction of the constitution of this state. The circuit court denied such appeal, but granted the defendant an appeal to this court. The defendant now moves for the transfer of the cause to the supreme court, claiming, for the reasons above stated, that that court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

The proceeding is one to open a public road, and is the same which we had under consideration in State ex rel. v. Heege, 89 Mo. App. 49. Upon the subsequent trial of the cause in the county court, the defendant demanded a trial by jury of twelve men (to which he claimed he was entitled under the constitution), to determine the question of jurisdiction. That claim was denied by the court. In the circuit court, where the cause was tried de nono, the defendant waived a jury, but upon the hearing he presented two instructions, challenging the constitutional validity of the proceedings in the county court. These instructions were refused.

Under our recent ruling in St. Louis, K. C. & C. Ry. Co. v. Lewright, ante, p. 212; and Musick v. [290]*290Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326, the case involves title to real estate, as part of defendant’s land is sought to be condemned for public use. A constitutional question is also properly raised upon the record, and, under the decision of the supreme court in State ex rel. v. St. Louis Court of Appeals, 97 Mo. 276, it is not for us to inquire whether it has any merit whatever, or whether it is a mere sh?im. It is, therefore, our duty to transfer the cause to the supreme court, in order that it may determine the question of its own jurisdiction.

Ordered that the cause be transferred to the supreme court.

All the judges concur.

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

Related

Bingaman v. Hannah
156 S.W. 496 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Bluefield v. Bailey
57 S.E. 805 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1907)
Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co. v. Eubank
55 Mo. App. 335 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
Joplin & Western Railway Co. v. McGregor
53 Mo. App. 366 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Mo. App. 288, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opening-of-essex-avenue-v-mermod-moctapp-1891.