Claspill v. Craig

Dwight CLASPILL, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. J. RAY CRAIG

Claspill v. Craig, 546 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 12, 1977
Docket: No. 9677
Judges: Billings, Flanigan, Hogan
Citations: 546 S.W.2d 2021977 Mo. App. LEXIS 1996

Cited by 5

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Suit by union firemen against 14 non-union firemen, seeking contribution for expenses incurred by the union members in litigation which allegedly benefited the defendants. Twelve of the defendants filed answer and a two-count counterclaim.

Trial by jury resulted in verdict for the 12 defendants on plaintiffs’ petition, verdict for $500 for each of the 12 defendants on count one of their counterclaim, and in favor of the plaintiffs on count two of the counterclaim. Judgment was entered on the verdicts.

The trial court overruled plaintiffs’ after trial motions as to their petition but granted them a new trial as to count one of the counterclaim and ordered a new trial on liability and damages. Defendants’ motions directed to the judgment entered on count two were overruled. Defendants lodged this appeal.

As earlier noted, 14 individuals were named as parties-defendants in the suit filed by plaintiffs. The judgment entered below makes no mention of defendants Cotter and Thurman. Appellants’ brief avers a pretrial agreement between these two defendants and plaintiffs, but the record and judgment are silent as to them.

Rule 74.01, V.A.M.R., and § 511.020, RSMo 1969, provide that a judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in the action. For a judgment to be final and appealable it must ordinarily dispose of all parties and all issues and leave nothing for further determination. Lewis v. Esselman, 512 S.W.2d 423 (Mo.App.1974). The judgment herein failing to dispose of *203 defendants Cotter and Thurman renders this appeal premature. Wile v. Donovan, 514 S.W.2d 177 (Mo.App.1974).

Appeal dismissed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts5

Relies on it most ⓘ

Haley v. City of Linn Creek583 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
State ex rel. Eichorn v. Luten561 S.W.2d 435 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
Jones v. Washburn560 S.W.2d 604 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
City of New Madrid v. Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.582 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
Dalrymple v. Moss611 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. App. 1981)

Most recent

Dalrymple v. Moss611 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. App. 1981)
Haley v. City of Linn Creek583 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
City of New Madrid v. Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.582 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
State ex rel. Eichorn v. Luten561 S.W.2d 435 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
Jones v. Washburn560 S.W.2d 604 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Wile v. Donovan, 514 S.W.2d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)	13
	Lewis v. Esselman, 512 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list