From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Chemical Co. v. Hawkins

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District
Aug 15, 1977
555 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 10632.

August 15, 1977.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, SCOTT COUNTY, MARSHALL CRAIG, J.

Hal E. Hunter, Jr., Hunter Hunter, New Madrid, for plaintiff-respondent.

Albert C. Lowes, Buerkle, Buerkle Lowes, Jackson, for defendant-appellant.


Appeal from an action to recover for property damage to a truck leased by respondent Riverside Chemical Company. On December 6, 1976, a Scott County jury returned a verdict in favor of respondent company in the amount of $1,404.06.

Thereafter, the following entry was made on December 6, 1976:

"WHEREFORE, in accordance with the verdict it is ordered, adjuged [sic] and decreed that plaintiff have and recover from the defendant the sum of $1404.06."

The quoted material may suffice as a minute or docket entry but fails to constitute a judgment from which an appeal may be taken, notwithstanding its cognomination as the "Judgment" of the court. Cochran v. DeShazo, 538 S.W.2d 598, 601[6] (Mo.App. 1976).

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.


Summaries of

Riverside Chemical Co. v. Hawkins

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District
Aug 15, 1977
555 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Riverside Chemical Co. v. Hawkins

Case Details

Full title:RIVERSIDE CHEMICAL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE J. HAWKINS…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District

Date published: Aug 15, 1977

Citations

555 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Elmore v. Whorton

Coffman v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., of Maine, 540 S.W.2d 175, 178[5] (Mo.App. 1976). The "Minutes of…

Byrd v. Brown

Defendants respond with the argument that the minute entry of November 17, 1978, was in no sense a "judgment"…