Adams v. Blecker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I; The appeal was properly taken to the Law Commissioner’s Court instead of the Land Court, and the Law Commissioner’s Court erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and this entirely independent of the act of February 18,1859. (Acts, 1859, p. 457, § 4.) II.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I; The appeal was properly taken to the Law Commissioner’s Court instead of the Land Court, and the Law Commissioner’s Court erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and this entirely independent of the act of February 18,1859. (Acts, 1859, p. 457, § 4.) II. The action was an attachment for rent, and was not in any manner an action or proceeding relating “to land or any interest, claim or right therein,” and appeals “ in such cases, and such only,” wore authorized to be taken “ to the St. Louis Land Court.” (R. O. 1855, p. 1592, §…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
The plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace on an account for rent due. Judgment having been rendered by the justice against the defendant, he appealed to the Law Commissioner’s Court, where, on motion of the plaintiff, the appeal was dismissed because of the supposed want of jurisdiction of the last named court, and the defendant brings the case here by writ of error.
*405The only question decided by the lower court, and therefore the only one for review in this, is the question of jurisdiction, and this turns upon whether an action for rent is an action “ relating to land, or…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dougherty v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Cooper v. RatleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Heltzell v. HynesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865