Shurtz v. Jost

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shurtz v. Jost

674 S.W.2d 244

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1984

DocketNo. 47576

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 674 S.W.2d 244 (Shurtz v. Jost) 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

Shurtz v. Jost, 674 S.W.2d 244 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Presiding Judge.

Jost (seller) appeals a jury verdict of $1,401.68 entered for Shurtz (broker). This case is before us for the third time on appeal. Again, we must dismiss the appeal as premature.

This court dismissed seller’s previous appeal as premature, because the judgment appealed from did not dispose of Count II of broker’s petition against seller. Shurtz v. Jost, 647 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.App.1983). Broker subsequently dismissed Count II of his petition without prejudice. On July 25, 1983, seller again filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court.

Because the judgment of May 20, 1980 did not dispose of all issues presented, this judgment was merely an interlocutory order. Bolin v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 1977). The record shows no action taken by the trial court to transform the interlocutory order into a final judgment. Warmann v. Ebeling, 669 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Mo.App.1984). Broker’s dismissal without prejudice of Count II in his petition does not have the effect of changing an interlocutory order to a final judgment absent further action by the trial court. See Bolin at 891.

Appeal dismissed.

PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ., concur.

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

CRIST, Presiding Judge.

Jost (seller) appeals a jury verdict of $1,401.68 entered for Shurtz (broker). This case is before us for the third time on appeal. Again, we must dismiss the appeal as premature.

This court dismissed seller’s previous appeal as premature, because the judgment appealed from did not dispose of Count II of broker’s petition against seller. Shurtz v. Jost, 647 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.App.1983). Broker subsequently dismissed Count II of his petition without prejudice. On July 25, 1983, seller again filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court.

Because the judgment of May 20, 1980 did not dispose of all issues presented, this judgment was merely an interlocutory order. Bolin v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 1977). The record shows no action taken by the trial court to transform the interlocutory order into a final judgment. Warmann v. Ebeling, 669 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Mo.App.1984). Broker’s dismissal without prejudice of Count II in his petition does not have the effect of changing an interlocutory order to a final judgment absent further action by the trial court. See Bolin at 891.

Appeal dismissed.

PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 S.W.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shurtz-v-jost-moctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack