[Download] "Charles Domyan and Rose Domyan v. Thomas" by Springfield District Missouri Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Charles Domyan and Rose Domyan v. Thomas
- Author : Springfield District Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 08, 1961
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
On June 23, 1959, plaintiffs instituted this action in ejectment by the filing of their petition in conventional form, alleging that, at all times since January 1, 1958, they had been legally entitled to possession of the 194.32-acre farm specifically described in the petition, and that defendants had withheld such possession unlawfully. The prayer of the petition was for possession of the described premises, for $500 damages for unlawful withholding of possession, for monthly rents and profits, and for costs. In their answer, defendants denied all allegations of the petition, excepting only that they had been and were in possession of the described premises, and averred that, on October 29, 1956, they had entered into a written contract with plaintiffs for purchase of the farm and that defendants owed $2,462.96 under said contract which they theretofore, to-wit, on December 17, 1958, had tendered and again with their answer ""hereby tender."" In the last numbered paragraph of their answer, defendants prayed that the court ""find and determine that the defendants are not in default of (sic) the contract and the contract is still valid and subsisting and * * * that the defendants are entitled to the peacable possession of the property under the provisions of the contract."" In the closing unnumbered paragraph, defendants asked only that ""having fully answered * * * they can go hence without day and for their costs."" Neither the petition nor the answer sought determination or conveyance of title to the real estate. After trial by the court without a jury on March 23, 1960, the case was taken under advisement. The judgment on April 8, 1960, showed the cause ""re-submitted to the court,"" found ""that defendants herein are not in default of (sic) the contract,"" ""ordered, considered, adJudged and decreed * * * that the defendants herein have judgment against the plaintiffs on plaintiffs petition,"" taxed the costs against defendants, and then "" further ordered * * * that the plaintiffs execute deed to lands in suit and to deliver deed and abstracts of title to defendants."" Plaintiffs appeal. Although neither plaintiffs nor defendants had questioned our jurisdiction prior thereto, in oral argument counsel frankly confessed doubt as to whether, by reason of the italicized portion of the final judgment, this is a case ""involving * * * the title to real estate"" of which our Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3, Const. of Mo., 2 V.A.M.S. Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed suggestions in which they requested transfer to the Supreme Court; and, of course, it is our duty to consider and determine our jurisdiction regardless of whether it has been challenged. Hammonds v. Hammonds, Mo. App., 289 S.W.2d 903, 904(1), and cases there cited; Johnson v. Woodard, Mo. App., 343 S.W.2d 646, 648(1).