In re the Establishment of Forsyth Boulevard
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hiezel, Judge. (1) The respondent having failed to file his exceptions to the report of the commissioners, “on or before the third day of the term” of court at which they were filed, lost his right of appeal; and, having no jurisdiction, the court should have sustained the plaintiff county’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This point was absolutely and essentially a jurisdictional fact, and may be raised at any time.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hiezel, Judge. (1) The respondent having failed to file his exceptions to the report of the commissioners, “on or before the third day of the term” of court at which they were filed, lost his right of appeal; and, having no jurisdiction, the court should have sustained the plaintiff county’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This point was absolutely and essentially a jurisdictional fact, and may be raised at any time. See statutes of 1889, section 7799. See analogous adjudications in 'Robinson v. Walker, 45 Mo. 117; Bauer v. Cabanne, 11 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfaklane, J.
This is a proceeding commenced in the county court of St. Louis county for the establishment of a public road, known as Forsyth Boulevard, through the land of respondent William Forsyth and others. Commissioners appointed to assess the damages of the said Forsyth made report on the fourth day of August, 1890, which was the first day of the August term of said court. To this report respondent filed exceptions on the twenty-fofirth day of said month. After a trial in said county by a jury, and judgment for the damages found, respondent appealed to the circuit court of St. Louis county, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Randolph Town-Site Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- St. Louis, Oak Hill & Carondelet Railway Co. v. FowlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Webster v. Kansas City & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Rutherford v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. WalshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Hubbell v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. Chicago & Alton RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- City of Los Angeles v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- City of Los Angeles v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946