*1 450 city may classify and our that mer holding

names merchants of the questions chants, inapplicable. those Some constitutional cases are suggested fully adversely to ap are but none that are not answered pellant Viquesney in City Schulte, supra. v. St. v. Kansas and Charles question

We in hold that the ordinance under which tax the was paid is judgment valid and of is the the circuit court therefore CC., affirmed. Hermood, Davis and concur. The foregoing by Cooley, C.,

PER opinion adopted is CURIAM: opinion Blair, J., White, concur; P. J., as the of the and court. J., Walker, absent. 1037. (2d) Derk Green, Appellant,

G. Lon R. 31 S.W. v. Owen. 13, Two, 1930. October Division Green, for se, appellant. G. D.erh Pro plaintiff-appel DAYIS, contest, an wherein G. This is election the of defendant-respondent to of contest the election lant seeks-to County. The in Linn Attorney City City of of Marceline of the fice contest, and, notice of plaintiff’s demurrer to a court sustained an order entered refusing further, the trial court plead plaintiff to appeal an was allowed appealed, and dismissing cause. Plaintiff the court. to this us, confronts question that primary jurisdiction is

I. Our the the jurisdiction, have neither we have for, if do not we op questions of error upon the right pass power nor to appeal.

451 jurisdiction appellate any We Rave where the to office under title (Art. is 12, this State involved Sec. Missouri Constitution), and VI, question raised, no only

as constitutional is this be seems to the *2 gi’ound might jurisdiction appear appellate that to confer on this county frequently city court. a within is a We held that a not havei political State, VI, 12, subdivision of this under Section Mis- Article jurisdiction so as to confer on this court. Constitution, souri [Smith 128 505, analogy right W. Sedalia, By 228 Mo. S. the to v. 735.] attorney municipality city of a involve the office of does not the title city any attorney city State. officeof of a officeunder this The is to city. State, office the an officeunder this but is an under not part: “In 4939, 1919, Section Revised Statutes in provides, II. right appeal exist, elections of shall and all cases of contested the appeals may be in same manner and to taken the time or may provided re- by the is law same courts as or be with appeals ordinary actions; in civil writs of error shall spect to and in civil actions.” in such cases as lie jurisdiction affirmatively appellate appear court

The of this must us, of In the record before the notice contest from the record. contesting plaintiff is election of defendant demonstrates that the City Attorney of years office of of Marceline for a term two to the develops 11, nothing April 1928, on but the record with beginning though say salary respect the the we could that the office, to of even salary for the term was an issue in an election contest. of the amount $7,500 dispute in must exceed sum of to this amount the invest The affirmatively appear jurisdiction, with and it from the court must dispute v. in exceeds that sum. Bante that the amount [Bante record (2d) 649, 19 W. 323 Mo. S. Development Co., 641.] appellate jurisdiction are in we this is that without It evident City to the Consequently, the cause is Kansas transferred cause. (7(7., Appeals. Cooley, Henwood concur. of and Court by The foregoingopinion Davis, C.,-is adopted CURIAM: PER concur; P. Blair, J., White, J., court. opinion of the and the as J., Walker, absent.

Raymond His Next A Friend, Minor, Beatrice Wecker, by Wecker Company Bier Sam and Ice Cream Grafeman-McIntosh v. Company, Appellant. Ice Cream

;man Grafeman-McIntosh W. S. (2d) 974. 31 13, Two, 1930. October

Division