Court Opinion

ID: 9762258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:17:56.019566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.433762
License: Public Domain

(On Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer)
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing or to transfer was received and filed by our clerk on June 13, 1964, the sixteenth day after our opinion in this case had been filed and handed down on May 28, 1964. Among the “RULES RELATING TO ALL APPELLATE COURTS” in Part II of the Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by our Supreme Court is Rule 83.16, V.A.M.R., pertaining to “Motions for Rehearing,” which plainly imposes the mandatory time limitation that a motion for rehearing “must be filed within fifteen days after the opinion of the court shall be filed” (Emphasis ours) Both circuit and appellate courts are vested with broad discretionary power to extend time, in the interest of substantial justice, for the doing of many acts. But there are some time limitations which must be respected and observed and which may not be altered or waived by the courts. E. g., the time limitations for the filing of a motion for new trial [V.A.M.R. Rules 78.02 and 44.01(b); Fagan v. Hamilton Bank, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 201, 202(1, 2); Hoppe v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 402, 404, 235 S.W.2d 347, 349(5), 23 A.L.R.2d 846; Robb v. Casteel, Mo.App., 340 S.W.2d 180, 183(1, 2)] and for the filing of a notice of appeal. V.A.M.R. Rules 82.04 and 82.07; Nattering v. Franz, 360 Mo. 854, 856, 231 S.W.2d 148, 149; Heard v. Frye, Mo.App., 319 S.W.2d 685, 686(2) ; Hance v. Johnson, Stephens & Shinkle Shoe Co., Mo.App., 306 S.W.2d 80, 82(2); Bank of Thayer v. Kuebler, 240 Mo.App. 776, 781, 219 S.W.2d 297, 299. The fifteen-day time limitation on the filing of a motion for rehearing is cast in mandatory language, and neither counsel nor the court is at liberty to ignore or wink at that limitation. The order of this court should be and is that plaintiff’s purported motion for rehearing or to transfer be stricken. Cf. Hoppe v. St. Louis Public Service Co., supra, 361 Mo. loc. cit. 404, 235 S.W.2d loc. cit. 349(5). However, in view of the “tear” and “temper” of that motion (to borrow the words of counsel), we have, ex gratia, examined it carefully and add the following comments.
In that motion, plaintiff (a) points out that his verdict-directing instruction 1 required a general finding that the “policy was in full force and effect at the time of the said collision and loss,” i. e., on April 5, 1956, by which date the renewal premium should have reached Carthage “whether [transported] by train, highway post office, star route carrier, or saddled gopher,” (b) suggests that, since April 1 was a Sunday and at 12:01 A.M. on April 2 “the company had no facility to accept premiums tendered in any fashion,” receipt of the renewal premium at a later time would have constituted timely payment (although plaintiff avoids any definite statement on this subject, the import of his motion and supporting suggestions seems to be that receipt at any time prior to the loss on April 5 would have been timely), and (c) asserts that defendant did not preserve the point that instruction 1 was erroneous for failure to require a finding that the money order had been mailed in time to have reached Rush prior to expiration of “the current term” or, in other words, while the policy was still in force and effect.
Of (a). As stated in the original opinion, plaintiff’s trial theory was that there had been timely payment of the renewal premium on March 30, 1956, by the act of depositing the money order in the United States mails in Kansas City, and nothing during trial either directed attention to the time when in due course the money order would have reached Rush or suggested that *814such time of receipt was of any importance or significance. Against the backdrop of this trial theory, the evidence adduced thereon, and the specific finding required by instruction 1 “that on March 30, 1956 and before the expiration date of April 2, 1956 * * * plaintiff properly mailed the premium * * * of $40.84” in a postage prepaid envelope addressed to Rush and deposited in the United States mails in Kansas City, we are of the opinion that it could not be fairly and reasonably believed or assumed on this judicial review either (1) that a finding that the money order had been mailed in time to have reached Rush in due course prior to expiration of “the current term” (hereinafter referred to as a time of receipt finding) was an essential prerequisite to the quoted general finding, or (2) that a time of receipt finding was implicit in or encompassed by the quoted general finding. And this is particularly true in view of the further fact that, as we also have observed, there was no evidence which properly would have justified or permitted a time of receipt finding. Accordingly, that issue was neither submissible under the evidence nor submitted by instruction 1.
Of (&). In his petition, plaintiff alleged that, under the policy, the renewal premium of $40.84 “became due and owing not later than 12:01 A.M. on April 2, 1956” and that he had paid that amount to Rush “on or about the 30th day of March, 1956.” Plaintiff’s suggestion that, since April 1 was a Sunday, receipt of the renewal premium at a later time would have constituted timely payment comes to us for the first time in his unseasonable motion for rehearing or to transfer. This, no doubt, because under plaintiff’s trial theory (i. e., that there had been timely payment of the renewal premium on March 30, 1956, by the act of depositing the money order in the United States mails in Kansas City) the time when in due course the renewal premium would have reached Rush would have been wholly meaningless and irrelevant. Nothing is better settled than that an appellate court will review a case only upon the theory upon which it was tried [Olsten v. Susman, Mo., 362 S.W.2d 612, 614(3); Voelker v. St. Louis Mercantile Library Ass’n., Mo., 359 S.W.2d 689, 693(2); Welch v. McNeely, Mo., 269 S.W.2d 871, 875(2); Griffin v. Anderson, Mo.App., 369 S.W.2d 889, 892 (7) ] and that a party will be held on appeal to his theory upon trial. King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 617, 625(16); Hill v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Mo.App., 374 S.W.2d 606, 610(6); Greathouse v. Wolff, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 297, 301(2); Wardin v. Quinn, Mo.App., 324 S.W.2d 151, 154(3). We do not rule the legal validity of plaintiff’s tardy suggestion, irrelevant to his trial theory and not presented or briefed by either party prior to submission here [cf. Thompson v. B & G Wrecking & Supply Co., Mo., 346 S.W.2d 65, 68], that, since April 1 was a Sunday, later receipt of the renewal premium would have constituted timely payment; and, of course, our disposition of this appeal is without prejudice to definitive embodiment of this suggestion, here unpleaded and amorphous, in an amended petition (if plaintiff be so advised) and to subsequent presentation of plaintiff’s then theory to, and determination thereof by, the circuit court.
Of (c). Plaintiff’s counsel are mistaken in their assertion that defendant did not preserve the point that instruction 1 was erroneous for failure to require a finding that the money order had been mailed in time to have reached Rush prior to expiration of “the current term” or, in other words, while the policy was still in force and effect. Among the numerous specific complaints leveled at instruction 1 in defendant’s motion for new trial in the circuit court was the complaint that “instruction [1] is further erroneous in not requiring the jury to find that the alleged remittance [money order] reached the defendant while the insurance policy was still in force and effect, but directs the jury to find the verdict for the plaintiff if the renewal premium was mailed on March 30, 1956 and before the expiration date of April 2, 1956 thereby *815predicating liability on the mere mailing of said remittance.” Point III of the “points relied on” in defendant’s appellate brief assigned reversible error in the giving of plaintiff’s instruction 1 for the reason, among others, “that the instruction did not require the jury to find that the remittance reached the defendant while the insurance policy was still in force and effect.” And the same complaint was carried forward into the “argument” section of the brief, first in the caption under which Point III was argued and again in this language in the body of the argument, to wit, “the instruction is further erroneous in not requiring the jury to find that the alleged remittance reached the defendant while the insurance policy was still in force and effect, ■etc.” True, defendant’s brief left us with the substantial burden of doing most of the legal research on this point, but that did not provide a rare, singular or unique experience for us.
If permitted to review plaintiff’s motion •for rehearing or to transfer on its merits, we would be constrained to overrule it; but, since it was not filed within the permitted time, our order is that the motion be .stricken.