*1 appeal dismiss the because the contained index. abstract petition, from case the trial had demurrer court sustained ruling judgment appealed. which thereon the petition, of the record on consisted demurrer and said, judgment. The c. 70 : “We have l. suffered demurrer, judgment which no inconvenience because the printed index. We think constitute the entire abstract without compliance in this case the abstract constitutes a substantial abstract here That cannot be said of the with the rule.” [Rule 13.] consisting twenty- question. voluminous, It is true purports forth, in order printed pages. to set to' But it seven steps trial, show, comply rules, all incident with our must constituting part including proper and matters matters of record exceptions. To hold incorporation in ignored may the abstract rules be because in such situation long happens very be would be but to case not to laxity by our own encourage laxity of our rules in the observance If rule is be them. not to uncertainty in enforcement of ? drawn How voluminous written, be where shall line enforced thereof in order that the abstract complicated a record be must rule? indexed, under the must be litigants guidance and for the court are made “Rules of court.” expediting the business of the facilitating and purpose Cox, etc., Dist., School ex rel. Consol. by litigants and ad- observance thereof (2d) 61, (3).] Reasonable and ex- herence thereto Respondents’ motion the court. disposal of the business peditious While we dislike ignore our rules. good unless we dismiss do so in this we feel constrained to manner disposing cases BoKling, CC., concur. Wesfh'ues and is dismissed. case. foregoing CURIAM: The C., PER Cooley, judges concur. All the opinion of the court. as the As Willis, Doing Business Wilson R. Ashbrook Brookwood Dairy Company, Farm & *2 Harding, Murphy & appellant. Tucker for
Cowgill & Popham respondent. and John F. Cook for BOHLING, plaintiff’s petition C. Action on and defendant’s damages arising counterclaim for out of a collision between automo- n by plaintiff jury $500 biles owned defendant. The returned $500 for verdict verdict defendant. granted upon motion, giving a new trial error 5, submitting
defendant’s Instruction No. defendant’s counterclaim on the “humanitarian” or “last chance” doctrine. assigns sustaining
Defendant error in said motion on ground is said instruction was and maintains he entitled judgment against plaintiff. to the reinstatement of Plaintiff con assigns tends the instruction was further error on improper and part informing jury of the trial court damage car, placed $1056.30 withdrawn claim to his petition. Our review of issues are thus limited under Section (Mo. Ann., p. 1341), Revised Statutes 1929 Stat. Rule appellate jurisdiction
This court is one of limited [Stuart Stuart, (1)]. only 8 W. possible ground for our over this the “amount Art. exceed Secs. Amend. [Sec. Const.,
1884 of R. pp. Sec, 1914, Art. Mo. R. Ann., p. presented for Mo. Stat. The issues review 2587]. clearly appellate vest here. However, subject appellate over the matter determined the record trial court the time ' granted. Houck [Little 460(1), 384, 385(2) (discussing-a issue); Trimble, State ex rel. v. Stuart, dispute”)
762(2) (discussing the . Stuart supra.] The cases hold we determine our subject ourselves; actions omission matter unaffected litigants. Whenever commission on integrity preserve have.reserved pierce pleadings, proofs, to ourselves the shell *3 judgment sufficiently far to determine record and infringed jurisdiction improper or is not upon, upon by design, or mere colorable—-and not foisted inadvertance 698, 245 Reynolds (en banc), ex Mo. real —amounts rel. v. (en banc), 162 Mo. 704(d), 85, 87(d); v. Wilson Russler 699, 272 567, 370; Johnson Mo. 565, Keleher v. 935; Kingshighway Presbyterian Realty v. Sun 701, 199 S. Church W. v. 513, (2d) 108, 109(3); Sleyster 24 Donzelot Co., 510, 324 S. W. Mo. (2d) 69, Pittsburg Bridge 825, 70; 323 20 Co. Son, & Mo. S. W. 546]; and, W. Co., 176, 179, 103 St. Transit 205 Mo. v. Louis Co., 199 Yanderberg City, Mo., v. Gas Mo. stated in of by gradual judicial process 97 S. exclusion W. dispute,” relating inclusion, meaning phrase in the the involving approached as cases has been No up for phases of the issue have been decision. occasion different rulings review, detail, ease to the thus de exists veloped. personal first petition
Plaintiff’s in two counts—the damages to placed $10,000,-and his auto injuries the second assigned grounds as' one of motion new mobile. Plaintiff’s in favor of were in that assessed therefor argued here. has been briefed nor adequate. That issue neither banc, issue, court', en Speaking to constitutional Drainage Houck, supra, Little River held: J., in Graves, to this appear can it must be divested “Before the (2) merely colorable, that, question that the constitutional passed upon substantial, previously it been although has one time longer question.” a live And therefore urge point brief nor his constitutional does not “Appellant further: can, do, From conclude that his that we brief here.
229 alleged question merely colorable and sub original opinion stantial.” discloses that [Reference “not” word between words “and”1 “substantial” has been (282 publication 461).] “By omitted from the official Mo. l. c. question, pass and find without sub agree
stance, cause, reason of fact transfer the but do not party that either either of commission can acts or'.omission waive jurisdiction.” reasoning our That ease overruled the in State ex Dickinson, 214 Carothers, rel. Crow v. S. W. and Scott v. 217 270, indicating “that the mere-abandonment constitu (although question juris tional a live when one obtained) diction Appeals.” the case to would transfer Notwithstanding expression's statements somewhat similar’ to the used cases, supra, in the State ex Crow rel. and Scott are to be found subsequent Drainage opinions divisional Dist Little (Cooper County Bunceton, rict case Bank v. Bank 624; 276 Village McElroy, S. W. Mo. Grandview 317 135, 138, 760, 762(10); Mortgage Lessley S. W. Co. v. Bankers 1058(2); (Mo.), Moberly, S. W. Oil Co. v. Standard (Mo.), S. W. Junior Junior (2d): 909, 910(2)), cases, light when considered (that is, reasoning in the Little River District case substance,' of color issue was not one' but .constitutional only), reach the correct result. Vanderberg Co., 199 City, Mo., v. Kansas Gas $5,000 punitive sued actual and
ages. involving $4,500 appeals This court had evidence, appealed at the time. Cast on demurrer *4 Reviewing record, reached the to this court. the entire damages punitive conclusion no were involved actual dollars, ages small, were a hundred and transferred within few Appeals case to the Court of because “the amount “Where, said: as in insufficient to vest- here. The court case, presented below and becomes the whole case this court has exceptions, of the record give unregulated power to a the whimsical and hesitated to jurisdiction by pen to its a mere stroke of control emergency to control we reserved to ourselves the have jurisdiction by looking whole far question of into the seeing jurisdiction i<? enough so, by do to it that not foisted to disputé, regulated but is paper a mere colorable amount dispute real amount in on as disclosed ’ ’ record. inadequacy plaintiff’s supra any
Under the authorities review; and from counsel’s failure reason presented be no issue reason— may, do, conclude here, issue said to vest only and not an issue of color of substance —and court. Appeals. City cause is transferred Tbe CC., Cooley Westhn.es, concur. by Bohling, C., The foregoingopinion
PER CURIAM judges All court. concur. Fitzsimmons, The State John