TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Blecker v. St. Louis Law Commissioner

Blecker v. St. Louis Law Comm'r, 30 Mo. 111 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1860
Judges
Ewing, Nap, Scott, Ton
Citations
30 Mo. 111
Headnotes
1. I-' the error complained of in the proceedings of an inferior court can he redressed on appeal or writ of error, a mandamus will he refused by the supreme court. 2. Questions of jurisdiction as between the several courts of St. Louis county-may be determined by the supreme court on appeal or writ of error.
Summary
Application for a Mandamus. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scott

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

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for a rule on the law commissioner to show cause why a mandamus should not issue against him requiring him to reinstate on the docket of his court an appeal from a justice’s court which had been dismissed.

The suit was for rent, and was originally brought before a justice of the peace, from whose judgment an appeal was taken to the law commissioner’s court, where it was dismissed for the reason that the commissioner was of the opinion that the appeal should have been taken to the land court. By law all appeals from justices of the peace are to be heard in the court of the law commissioner, except those (and those only) which relate to “ land or any interest, claim or right therein,” which are cognizable in the land court. Whatever may have been the extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of the land court prior to the act of 18th February, 1859, (Sess. Acts, 1859, p. 457,) we are of the opinion that the fourth section of that act which confers on the “ St. Louis circuit and common pleas courts concurrent jurisdiction with the land court in all suits and actions except those for the direct recovery of the possession of real estate,” has materially changed both the original and appellate jurisdiction of that court. As the policy of the law at first was to give the land court exclusive jurisdiction in those appeal cases from justices of the peace, the subject of which was matter of which the land court had exclusive jurisdiction in cases where the sum in controversy exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice, and as that policy is now abandoned and the jurisdiction of the land court in such cases is no longer exclusive but concurrent, there is no longer any reason for giving *113 the land court appellate jurisdiction in those cases in which it possesses only a jurisdiction concurrent with the other courts.

As questions of jurisdiction, as between the several courts organized for St. Louis, are matters that can be determined on appeal or writ of error, we are restrained from issuing a mandamus on this application. Questions of jurisdiction between the several courts of St. Louis county have frequently been decided on appeals and writs of error.

The rule is refused.

Judge Ewing concurs; Judge Nap-ton absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 21886–1887: 11890–1891: 11898–1899: 11910–1911: 11920–1921: 11922–1923: 11950–1951: 11980–1981: 118842026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Kelley v. Mitchell595 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. 1980)
  2. State ex rel. Herriford v. McKee51 S.W. 421 (Mo. 1899)
  3. State ex rel. Kelly v. Trimble247 S.W. 1009 (Mo. 1923)
  4. State ex rel. Case v. Seehorn223 S.W. 664 (Mo. 1920)
  5. State ex rel. Faires v. Buhler90 Mo. 560 (1886)
  6. Fong, Auditor v. Sapienza, Judge39 Haw. 79 (1951) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Kelley v. Mitchell595 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. 1980)
  2. Fong, Auditor v. Sapienza, Judge39 Haw. 79 (1951) · Dissent
  3. State ex rel. Kelly v. Trimble247 S.W. 1009 (Mo. 1923)
  4. State ex rel. Case v. Seehorn223 S.W. 664 (Mo. 1920)
  5. State ex rel. Spring River Electric Power Co. v. Thurman132 S.W. 1157 (Mo. 1910)
  6. State ex rel. Herriford v. McKee51 S.W. 421 (Mo. 1899)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list