*1 may rights court. The of what effect this case have as to the parties county Jackson case is not before us. properly The motion to amend was overruled and the decree as Bohling Barrett, written is affirmed. CG., foregoing opinion C., Westhues, of the court. All the City McMurray, La Verne v. Kansas 39286. 186 (2d) 593. April One,
Trusty Pugh& and L. BocleJtohr appellant. respondent
Charles M. Miller for City Kansas BRADLEY, C. This an appeal from sustaining what is termed a pro motion for a nunc tunc order to correct the number of a case. LaVerne McMurray, appellant here, and her
McMurray, on December separate had personal injury suits pending in the County Jackson against circuit court respondents here. The husband’s case was No. 480984; her petition judgment she asked for $15,000. 6, 1943, Assignment following Division No. order was made: day, “Now on following numbered and entitled cause assigned the respective to the division to wit: 480984— Kansas Division No. 1.” ' defendants, respondents here, and Plaintiff, here, and 1 and tried to a appeared in Division No. counsel on both sides *2 1943, No. the 480986, 18, wife’s and on case, the against the a in of the defendant $7500 returned verdict favor wife but in the de- Company, found favor of Metropolitan Life filed fendant Kansas appellant here, filed a motion plaintiff, motion for a new trial and a pend- trial the These motions are for new as to still ing, understand. as we assignment the
May 1944, Company the filed in the division 5, number, that motion to correct the so the record would show 480984, 480986, case, assigned out for trial and not No. the wife’s motion, an order the case. The court sustained this husband’s made correcting, appealed, so the and that the and wife is here. (and husband) and who appellant L. counsel for her Trusty,
S. the her called as a for the Gas at case, tried witness number, and testified that the hearing on the motion correct the to gone, that he Navy, was in the try “trying to case and that he knew he was the wanted McMurray” being case of LaVerne when the case was tried. jurisdiction to make
Appellant contends the court was without that wholly correcting the and that said order is void. the number Also, it con- contrary the contention is made. is On the other hand appealable. point the order of correction was not And the tended that failed is made that should be dismissed because the. proper assignment to make a and because an insufficient statement of of errors. question jurisdiction
Nothing is said in the briefs the of on question presents is However, itself, such it appeal. of when not. duty question our to determine such whether raised or Perkins v. 756; al., (2d) 845, (2d) 61 248, et 336 78 W. Burks Mo. S. 218, (2d) 991; Miller al., 346 Mo. 139 S. W. et al. Ashauer v. Peer et Sup.), 180 W. (Mo. v. Heisler S. et al. 12, 5, 1884, Art. Amendment 6, Constitution,
Sec. Sec. of 2078, 1939, 2078, with Mo. R. A., read connection See. R. S. S. Sec. supreme Assuming prescribe jurisdiction the appellate lie, here, still under record there that such an here will the juris give supreme the possible theory that would could be no theory dispute the amount in exceeds it that diction be on unless $7500. the sum of jurisdiction is invoked on the basis of the amount in
“Where our sought, must money judgment not then such amount dispute is money plaintiff, to or value of the relief be determined versa, granted, or vice should defendant, the relief be to the loss Planing Mill Co. v. Frank Schmidt Mueller denied.” the relief be Smith, al., et 670; Higgins et al. 347 Mo. et S. the sole it, 144 S. W. 149. As we see Mo. the cor- assuming proper, validity presented, valid, pending appellant’s order. If such order then case is rection If for a new trial. the correction order is void on the motions contended, touching appellant’s case are void as is proceedings whole unassigned. seems, pending then the would supreme lie the if as here will clear that quite We are that equally clear jurisdiction and we are have thereof court would not 1939, Mo. 1238, R. appealable. not .See. S. order of correction is “Every follows: 1238 defines an order of court as A., Sec. R. S. writing and not judge or entered in of a court or made direction judgment, Sec. R. included in a is denominated an order.” S. No appealable sets out all orders. A., R. Sec. place among the possible construction correction would appealable provides orders out Sec. 1184. 1184 also set Sec. *3 appeal any judgment. will lie from final No ease is cited we supporting find no case notion that the correction order is final judgment as term is used in See. 1184. &
Cox Frank L. Schaab Stove Furniture premature appeal 58 S. involved a and a in the case. That case transferred to the jurisdiction, present as 1933. appeals on March The was dismissed February 6,1934. 790. Almost appeals See the court of until the case reached year elapsed from the order of transfer ease, In appeals. as dismissed court of present premature was certain that the why would be dismissed. We can see n'o reason the dismissal of the present delayed; why should be no reason we know of dismissal cannot be made here. Such be in will the interest of justice. speedier ruling dismissed the Cox ease to that in such effect situation here cause will be transferred to appeals
the court of should be overruled. It is so ordered. Dalton Osdol, CG., Van foregoing opinion isC., Bradley, All the B. Company, a Cor- John Turner, v. Central Hardware poration. 39214. 186 603. Two, April 2,