Case Name: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. P. G. NICHOLAS et al., Appellants
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1912-02-06
Citations: 163 Mo. App. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. P. G. NICHOLAS et al., Appellants.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 163
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. P. G. NICHOLAS et al., Appellants.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
February 6, 1912.
The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (149 Mo. App. 121) is adopted as the opinion of the court.
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Ron. Henry G. Riley, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
tTere 8. Gossom for appellants.
B. A. McKay for respondent.

Opinion:
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. 39391, R. S. 1909.] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Nixon of that court, as will appear by reference to State v. Nicholas et al., 149 Mo. App. 121, 130 S. W. 96. Suhse quently, 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 considering 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 reasons given in that opinion the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.
All concur.