Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 Mo. 246

Wolff v. Matthews

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1889-04-15

Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge. Transferred to st. loots court of appeals. Plaintiff is assignee of an account against defendant, made by a firm ( L. A. & Co.) for moneys alleged to have been expended for defendant with interest on each of such items from its date. Defendant denied the claim generally. The trial resulted in judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Relies on Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1958

12 state decisions

3018891890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Barclay, J.

¶1— In an action of this nature no interest is recoverable ( in the absence of an agreement on the subject) prior to a demand for the amount on which interest is claimed. Such a demand in this case was necessary to sustain a claim for interest whether the plaintiff’s items be regarded as composing one current account or as separate demands. The personal service of process is a demand for the purpose of starting the running of interest but that would not raise the plaintiff’s total claim, at the time of the judgment, to twenty-five hundred dollars. No evidence was offered by plaintiff to support a recovery for sufficient interest to raise his demand to that sum.

¶2We recently decided that, where the record disclosed plaintiff’s Claim as a liquidated one below the limit of our jurisdiction, the prayer of the petition for a greater amount would not be taken as indicating the “ amount in dispute.” ■ By that expression the constitution means the amount of the real dispute at the time of the judgment appealed from. Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh, 97 Mo. 287.

¶3It follows that this case is within the jurisdiction of the St. Louis court of appeals. It is therefore transferred to that court for further proceedings,

all the judges concurring except Sherwood, J., absent.
/98/mo/246 · .json · Public domain