TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Deiermann v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co.

ANNIE DEIERMANN v. BEMIS BROTHERS BAG COMPANY

Deiermann v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co., 143 S.W. 1197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 6, 1912
Citations
143 S.W. 1197163 Mo. App. 5221912 Mo. App. LEXIS 255
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
The opinion of tlie Springfield Court of Appeals in this ease (144 Mo. App. 474) is adopted as tlie opinion of tlie court.
Summary
Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — Ho». James E. Withrow, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but was thereafter transferred by it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396; see, also, sec. 3939, R. S. 1909.] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Gray of that court, as will appear by reference to Deiermann v. Bemis Brothers Bag Co., 144 Mo. App. 474 , 129 S. W. 229 . Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the said legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were coram non judice.

The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and con *523 sidering the arguments, we are persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reason given in that opinion the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11954: 11956: 11959: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brooks v. Union Depot Bridge & Terminal Railroad258 S.W. 724 (Mo. Ct. App. 1923)
  2. Willis v. Willis274 S.W.2d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Gosnell v. Gosnell329 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)
  4. Jones v. Atlanta Life Insurance Co.289 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Gosnell v. Gosnell329 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)
  2. Jones v. Atlanta Life Insurance Co.289 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956)
  3. Willis v. Willis274 S.W.2d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954)
  4. Brooks v. Union Depot Bridge & Terminal Railroad258 S.W. 724 (Mo. Ct. App. 1923)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Deiermann v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co., 129 S.W. 229 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910) 13

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