Thompson v. Healzer Cartage Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thompson v. Healzer Cartage Co.

280 S.W.2d 143, 1955 Mo. App. LEXIS 129

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1955

DocketNo. 22149

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 S.W.2d 143 (Thompson v. Healzer Cartage 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

Thompson v. Healzer Cartage Co., 280 S.W.2d 143, 1955 Mo. App. LEXIS 129 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

CAVE, Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of á collision between the automobile he was driving and a truck owned by defendant Healzer Cartage Company and driven by its agent,L. R. Bryan.

The prayer was for damages in the aggregate sum of $75,000. Trial to jury resulted in a-verdict and judgment for plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $6,850. Plaintiff filed motion for new trial on the sole ground of the inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was overruled and plaintiff ■ perfected his appeal to this court.

The only ground of error assigned on appeal is that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial which charged that the verdict was so grossly inadequate, as to import passion and prejudice on the part bi the jury. The rule is that where a plaintiff, being dissatisfied, appeals from a judgment in his own favor, the “amount in dispute” for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction is the difference between the amount claimed or sued for and the amount recoveréd at the trial. Grodsky v. Consolidated Bag Co., 324 Mo. 1067, 26 S.W.2d 618; Coghlan v. Trumbo, Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 794; same case reported in Mo., 179 S.W.2d 705; Hemminghaus v. Ferguson, 358 Mo. 476, 215 S.W.2d 481; Conner v. Neiswender, 360 Mo. 1074, 232 S.W.2d 469; Sec. 3, Art. V, Constitution 1945, V.A.M.S.

Under the above decisions the “amount in dispute” in this case is in excess of $7,500, and this court does not have jurisdiction. Consequently, the cause should be transferred to the Supreme Court. It is so ordered.

DEW, P. J., and ROSE, Special Judge, concur. BROADDUS, J., not sitting.

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

CAVE, Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of á collision between the automobile he was driving and a truck owned by defendant Healzer Cartage Company and driven by its agent,L. R. Bryan.

The prayer was for damages in the aggregate sum of $75,000. Trial to jury resulted in a-verdict and judgment for plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $6,850. Plaintiff filed motion for new trial on the sole ground of the inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was overruled and plaintiff ■ perfected his appeal to this court.

The only ground of error assigned on appeal is that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial which charged that the verdict was so grossly inadequate, as to import passion and prejudice on the part bi the jury. The rule is that where a plaintiff, being dissatisfied, appeals from a judgment in his own favor, the “amount in dispute” for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction is the difference between the amount claimed or sued for and the amount recoveréd at the trial. Grodsky v. Consolidated Bag Co., 324 Mo. 1067, 26 S.W.2d 618; Coghlan v. Trumbo, Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 794; same case reported in Mo., 179 S.W.2d 705; Hemminghaus v. Ferguson, 358 Mo. 476, 215 S.W.2d 481; Conner v. Neiswender, 360 Mo. 1074, 232 S.W.2d 469; Sec. 3, Art. V, Constitution 1945, V.A.M.S.

Under the above decisions the “amount in dispute” in this case is in excess of $7,500, and this court does not have jurisdiction. Consequently, the cause should be transferred to the Supreme Court. It is so ordered.

DEW, P. J., and ROSE, Special Judge, concur. BROADDUS, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.2d 143, 1955 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-healzer-cartage-co-moctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack