Case ID: mo-app_104/html/0376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BLAND, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRISTOL, Respondent, v. THOMPSON, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    February 16, 1904.
    JURISDICTION: Court of Appeals: Ejectment. An action for the value of improvements, under section 3072, Revised Statutes 1899, is a continuation of the ejectment suit out of which it grows, and the court of appeals has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
    Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court. — Ho». Asbery Burkhead, Judge.
    Transferred to Supreme Court.
    
      J. S. Clarke for appellant.
   BLAND, P. J.

The plaintiff, who was an unsuccessful defendant in an ejectment suit, proceeded under section 3072, R. S. 1899, to recover the value of improvements made by him upon the land. He recovered in the circuit court and defendant appealed to this court. In Stump, v. Hornback, 109 Mo. l. c. 279, it is said:

‘ ‘ The proceedings to recover for improvements were designed merely to supplement and continue the ejectment suit out of which they grew, and enforce the equities of the occupant before the judgment in the original suit had been executed.” This court has no jurisdiction in an ejectment suit. This' proceeding being a continuation of the ejectment suit, it must follow that this court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this suit. The appeal is therefore transferred to the Supreme Court.

Reyburn and Goode, JJ., concur.