Otrich v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

144 S.W. 1199, 164 Mo. App. 444, 1912 Mo. App. LEXIS 353
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 5, 1912·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, hut was thereafter transferred hy it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396; see, also Sec. 3939, R. S. 1909.] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Nixon of that court, as will appear by reference to Otrich v. Railroad, 154 Mo. App. 420, 134 S. W. 665. Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the said legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were coram non judice.

[445]*445The ease has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments, we are persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reasons given in that opinion the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded;

All concur.

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

Otrich v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co., 144 S.W. 1199, 164 Mo. App. 444, 1912 Mo. App. LEXIS 353 (Mo. Ct. App. 1912).

144 S.W. 1199 (Otrich v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dietz v. Southern Pacific Railway Co.
28 S.W.2d 395 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1930)
Louisville N. R. Co. v. Strickland
122 So. 693 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)