Kenneth A. Stark v. Corliss J. Moffit

Plaintiff instituted this action in the Circuit Court on November 18, 1960, by which he sought to obtain payment of the sum
of $4,425 out of a fund held in escrow by defendant Farmers Bank of Bowling Green, Missouri. One of the defendants below was
Corliss J. Moffit, Executrix of the Estate of Francis R. Moffit, Deceased. On the day argument was heard in this court the
resignation of the Executrix and the appointment of her successor was suggested, and J. H. Middleton, Administrator D.B.N.
C.T.A. of said Estate has been substituted in her stead. In the trial court the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
plaintiff's petition, on the grounds that prior to the filing of this suit plaintiff had filed a claim in the Probate Court
of Pike County against the Estate of Francis R. Moffit based upon the same cause of action. Subsequently the court entered
a judgment sustaining defendants' motion and dismissing plaintiff's petition, "* * * on the ground of priority of jurisdiction
in the Probate Court * * *" and plaintiff appealed. As the court stated in its memorandum opinion, it is a well established rule that when a court of competent jurisdiction
becomes possessed of a cause, its authority continues, subject only to the authority of a superior court, until the matter
is finally and completely disposed of; and no court of concurrent jurisdiction may interfere with its action. State ex rel
Sullivan v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S.W. 487: In re Gaebler's Estate, Mo. App., 248 S.W.2d 12. This rule rests upon comity
and the necessity of securing proper and orderly administration of Justice to prevent vexation, oppression, harassment and
unnecessary litigation. Any other rule would result in a multiplicity of suits and create unseemly, expensive and dangerous
conflicts in the securing and execution of judgments. State ex rel Sullivan v. Reynolds, supra; In re Gaebler's Estate, supra.
It is stated in the latter authority (l.c.p. 15) that "In applying the rule above mentioned the proper test is: (1) whether
there is a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter; and (2) whether the court in which the
prior suit is pending has jurisdiction to render the particular relief sought in the subsequent action. Where the prior jurisdiction
has terminated or is inadequate to afford the necessary relief, the assumption of jurisdiction by another court is permissible."