*1 Proceedings Re In District, Etc., Condemnation Park in East Respondent Missouri, City, Kansas J. Mansfield, v. Brice Appellant. 201 S. W. 2d 434. Appeals. Opinion Court of delivered March B. J. Smith appellant. *2 respondent. Powers, for Proctor, City Counselor, Benj.

David M. M. Steiner, Attorneys George B. L. Stemmier and James of St. Louis.

BOYER, proceeding condemn C. Kansas instituted this individual, to- park appellant as property purposes. for The 328

gether others, with part ground owned of to be taken and described as Tract transcript here, the record. as The appellant’s brief, duly well shows that regularly prosecuted through steps instituted and the various procedure conformity to final plans with the provisions City’s special charter for the condemnation property public purposes. transcript appellant for appeared by during jury qualification counsel selection freeholders; jury of six disinterested that such was selected court; jury ap- thereafter trial was had before such at which attorney. pellant appeared by also verdict returned its September 17,1945, damages various awarded to the owners to be real tracts land taken and levied assessments day thereby. owners estate to be The next the various benefited 1, trial including separate of Tract new appellant, filed motions rehearing, being allega- primarily upon and a said motions based damages taking was so in- tion the award of Tract adequate made There was no claim as to amount to confiscation. were not accorded in either these motions that defendants on December The motions were overruled and confirming 1945, court entered final decree its Thereafter, and on December of freeholders. verdict “Motion 1945, a of Mansfield entitled: motion was filed in behalf This of 12 men.” for trial this condemnation case defendants; that he motiofi Mansfield was one of the recites that six; jury of that said exceptions had filed the award of the had been trial and exceptions motion for new were contained his duly the verdict denied and overruled the court and *4 of provisions court; and by under the terms confirmed the 1943, page of Missouri legislature in Laws an of the found the act damages should as to what 623, to have the entire issue he is entitled 1 and fixed Tract him the owner of adjudged be and decreed to as rule. the to so prayed and court by men, of determined twelve 1946, February 19, which to on motion was heard and overruled This February following day, the exceptions. On order defendant saved from Supreme Court to the 20, 1946, appeal of Mansfield notice .filed men of twelve denying him a trial of the order the court captioned: The motion is question damages of be allowed. on the to owner, from Mansfield, property Brice appeal of J. “Notice question men 12 on by a of the denying him a order of court owned property real taking of damages him for the of to be allowed This notice proceeding.” 1, in him and as Tract this described taken appeal that the literally specifically appeal and motion overruling Mansfield’s merely ease from the ivas by a trial of twelve.

329 The case was to Supreme sent the Court where briefs were filed on behalf appellant- and on behalf of .respondent, City; upon request and of counsel in City they behalf of Louis, the of St. permitted were to a brief as Upon file amicus curiae. consideration case, the Supreme Court found “there is constitu- no question presented tional appellate jurisdiction to confer upon this ’’ court, and Appeals. transferred the ease to the Kansas Court of question briefs are devoted to a as to consideration whether the Session Act and page referred to shown on 623 of .the every Laws of 1943, applies Missouri to condemnation in state, the including proceedings prose- such as instituted and are in plan provisions cuted accordance with and contained charter of cities authorized to under operating charters. We precluded have reached the conclusion that this court from a .is question sought consideration and be presented decision .to the reasons which we now shall state. every any

A appellate matter of first to court case concern question presented jurisdiction sponte, is the which arises sua plain upon suggestion party litigant. as well of a From the naturally question jurisdiction record in ease arises this inquiry non-appeal- appeal in is from a as to whether the this case able order. right cases, appeal law, many

It is old reiterated reasonably statutory only specified or purely and exists in cases is Pence unnecessary multiply authorities. within the statute. is It (2d)W. Laundry Co., 930, 936, 59 S. v. K. C. 332 Mo. Service authority upon statutory no An sanction confers without ' appeal. dismissing an order appellate an except court to enter citing 677, 679; Hayes (2d) Lines, Truck 192 S. W. See Weller v. many 473, other W. 51, (2d) S. Trimble, ex Mo. 62 State rel. appeals permissible been declared to be law cases. Such has things, allowed among other 1939, R. Mo. which under Sec. S. any final judgment aüd from by a an'appeal party aggrieved after any special order judgment, or from Code, Missouri Laws of 126 of new Civil cause. Sec. defining and enumer- right 390, conferring the

page may an from which ating specific orders decisions of the old Code. as Sec. substantially the same taken, be allowance in reference to provisions are identical judg- any final -party aggrieved appeal to *5 cause. in the judgment final any order after ment, special or from question directly upon the inquiry in ease centers the this So case taken was an which the order from to whether meaning and contemplation the in order within appealable is fact an within comes order such statute, particularly and whether of the category “special the of a judgment” order final after from which an permitted. is . paucity any

There a in of cases which of our courts have attempted interpretation a definition meaning or an of the of the particular phrase question. in However, there is one case our Supreme regard interpretation in an made, Court which ivas and we apt Sullivan, it as in the In pending conclusive case. Wehrs v. Supreme gave 187 S. W. interpretation the Court its “any meaning phrase special judgment the of the order after final in the cause” and the court said: “This clause the refers to orders special aiding enforcement, in or proceedings attacking the of the judgment final after it has in action which it become the in was judgment ap rendered.” A final had been rendered in the case sought .prosecute pellants overruling to from the order new considering their motion for a The court was whether it' trial. jurisdiction appeal, preceding had in that the defi cause holds, given the that the opinion effect, nition above states and appeal might judgment have been from the demon fact that an taken from the mean appealed strates that the order does not come within ’’ ‘‘ ing final any special judgment after in the There cause. any pronounce or departure has never been variation these Applying able the law ments so far. as we have been to ascertain. right appellant in this case had no stated, appears thus it that overruling a jury his motion for trial on the appeal from the order judgment final ground order after such order was that rulings stated It has often been that court cause. Laundry Pence K. judgments of the court. C. motions are not l. c. supra, Service Co. subsequent appellant by jury trial was to the motion any special, initiation of not in

final was sense'the validity any attacking judgment; nor is there appellant no There is claim that intended as such. claim it was aggrieved by judgment. appellant motion was to be filed motion desired was not fact order which he recog- law had presented. It no status which the at the time it was right of a of trial assert claim to appellant nizes. If desired orderly he have made process, should in due and of twelve doing that Instead of impaneled. was request before the such at appeared counsel appellant case the record in this jury’s verdict jury. When that before freeholders’ appellant in behalf of a new trial was a motion for was rendered findings There exceptions to the to b'e which he claims his tried the kind of motion objection no in that a trial right of this defendant’s ease, claim nor was there until after ever asserted claim was twelve, and no such verdict, affirming approving the ease *6 question only The motion in not out' of time but was place. out of It was without purpose definite direction or known to the law. If such motion could be considered at the time place presented appeal overruling and an from an it permitted, be might indefinite number of sucfh motions be greatly with the expense, delay, result and almost in- increased litigation. terminable appeal The order which the was taken case was not order after permissible which an cause under the statute. necessarily juris- conclusion follows that this court has no diction appeal. of the cause other than dismiss should, therefore, be dismissed and the Commissioner so recommends. foregoing

PER opinion C., adopted CURIAM: The Boyer, opinion of the court. The is dismissed. All except Spérry, G., sitting. concur not High

Farmers School Consolidated District No. Johnson Respondent Appel- County, Missouri, Dr. H. Parker, F. 2d, lant. 203 W. 516. S. Appeals. Opinion Court delivered June