Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Missouri Glass Co. v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 10, 1912PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Mandamus. (1) When the Court of Appeals is not given jurisdiction of a class of cases by the Constitution, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of parties. State ex rel. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496. (2) Mandamus is proper procedure to compel Court of Appeals to transfer a case to this court on the ground that this court has exclusive jurisdiction of the appeal.

Read the full summary

Mandamus. (1) When the Court of Appeals is not given jurisdiction of a class of cases by the Constitution, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of parties. State ex rel. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496. (2) Mandamus is proper procedure to compel Court of Appeals to transfer a case to this court on the ground that this court has exclusive jurisdiction of the appeal. State ex rel. v. Smith, 177 Mo. 69. (3) The fact that the Court of Appeals had already handed down its mandate and has adjourned constitutes no reason why it should not now be compelled by the court to transfer this appeal. State…

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

This is an original proceeding of mandamus. Respondents, the judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, filed their return to our alternative writ, and relator then moved for judgment on the pleadings. By the suit relator seeks to compel the St. Louis Court of Appeals to certify to this court for final determination a certain cause of Theodosia Wallace Pleadwell et al., plaintiffs, v. Missouri Glass Co., defendant, on the ground that the determination of the cause involved a construction of the revenue laws of this State. A brief history of the case as contained in the record and briefs before…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  2. State ex rel. Hadley v. AdkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  3. Pleadwell v. Missouri Glass Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. State ex rel. Hughlett v. FinleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Estate of Thomson v. ThomsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
  2. White v. BoyneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
  3. Associated Holding Co. v. W. B. Kelley & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  4. State ex rel. Lashly v. WurdemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API