State v. Nixon

Decision Date17 December 1910
PartiesSTATE ex rel. DUNHAM v. NIXON et al., Judges.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

limits their territorial jurisdiction, the two courts covering the whole state, and also authorized the Legislature to establish a third court of appeal, and define its territorial jurisdiction. The additional court was established at Springfield, and its district defined, by Laws 1909, p. 393. Held, that the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the three courts having been established by the Constitution, or under authority therein granted, the Legislature had no power to enact Laws 1909, p. 396 (Rev. St. 1909, § 3939), authorizing the several courts of appeals to transfer cases arising in their own districts to the court of appeals of another district for determination, in order to equalize business before them.

2. COURTS (§ 43)—ESTABLISHMENT—HALLS OF LEGISLATURE.

The governmental power to establish courts and to define their jurisdictions is legislative in character, and is limited only by the Constitution.

3. COURTS (§ 483) — POWER — TRANSFER OF CAUSE.

Unless expressly authorized to do so, a court has no authority to transfer a cause from itself to another court, and thereby give the other court possession of the case to hear and determine it, although the other court would have had jurisdiction of the case if it had come to it by due process.

4. COURTS (§ 483)—JURISDICTION—POWER OF LEGISLATURE — CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACT —"HEARING AND DETERMINATION."

The power of the General Assembly under Const. 1875, art. 6, § 12, and section 3 of the amendment to that article of 1884 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 243) to provide for the "hearing and determination" of causes by the courts to which they have been transferred, is not a power to confer jurisdiction upon a court which otherwise had no jurisdiction, but only authorizes transfers to a court of cases of which, by constitutional alterations in the law, the court had already been vested with jurisdiction.

5. COURTS (§ 43)COURTS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION—MISSOURI—POWER OF LEGISLATURE.

The jurisdiction of one of the courts of appeal is confined to the limits prescribed by law; and, while the General Assembly may change those limits, it cannot give a court jurisdiction of a cause arising outside of such limits.

In banc. Petition by the State ex rel. H. G. Dunham for a writ of prohibition against J. P. Nixon and others, Judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals. Writ of prohibition awarded.

W. B. & Ford W. Thompson and Jos. S. Laurie, for relator. Morrow & Kelley, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

Relator asks a writ to prohibit the Springfield Court of Appeals entertaining jurisdiction of a case transferred to that court from the St. Louis Court of Appeals by authority of an act of the General Assembly entitled "An act to empower the judges of the courts of appeals of this state to transfer causes from one court of appeals to another court of appeals in this state, providing for the method of such transfer and notice thereof to litigants and attorneys in the causes so transferred," approved June 12, 1909. Laws 1909, p. 396. Relator contends that the act is unconstitutional being contrary to section 12, art. 6 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 218), and sections 1, 2, and 3 of the amendment to that article of 1884 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 243). The cause transferred from the St. Louis to the Springfield Court of Appeals was one wherein O. L. Houts, as plaintiff, obtained a judgment in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in June, 1907, against George P. B. Jackson, as defendant, for $5,038. Jackson took an appeal to the Supreme Court, which at that time had jurisdiction of appeals in causes when the amount in dispute was over $4,500. But in 1909 the General Assembly passed an act giving jurisdiction to the courts of appeals where the amount in controversy did not exceed $7,500, and requiring the Supreme Court to transfer causes then pending in this court, and not under submission, to the proper court of appeals, "to be heard and determined." Laws 1909, p. 397. In obedience to that requirement, this court transferred the case of Houts v. Jackson, 128 S. W. 231, to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Afterwards the St. Louis Court of Appeals in December, 1909, transferred the cause to the Springfield Court of Appeals pursuant to the requirements of the act of June 12, 1909, above mentioned, and the cause was set for hearing in that court at its March term, 1910. In the meantime appellant Jackson died intestate, and relator herein was appointed administrator of his estate, and in due time, as such administrator, he filed a motion in the Springfield Court of Appeals to return the cause to the St. Louis Court of Appeals on the grounds, first, that the Springfield court had no jurisdiction of the cause; second, that the act of the General Assembly of June 12, 1909, was unconstitutional. The court overruled the motion, and also overruled a motion for rehearing. Then the relator filed his petition in this court praying a writ of prohibition. The cause is now held in suspense in the Springfield court awaiting the decision of this court on the question involved.

The relator in his petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Springfield court on only one ground; that is, the alleged unconstitutionality of the act of June 12, 1909; and, on the other hand, the only ground on which that court claims jurisdiction is that the cause was regularly transferred to it under the requirements of that act, so therefore the constitutionality of the act is the only controversy in this case. The purport of the act in question is to confer on the judges of the courts of appeals authority to transfer causes from one of those courts to another "so as to divide all cases pending equally among said courts as near as practicable." The governmental power to establish courts and to define their jurisdictions is legislative in its character, belongs to the General Assembly, and is limited only by the Constitution. Therefore the General Assembly had the power to pass this act unless its power in that respect is restricted by some provision of the Constitution. When the Constitution speaks on a subject, to the extent that it disposes of the matter, it ends all legislation concerning it. In section 1, art. 6, all judicial power of the state is given to certain courts therein named, and the sections following in that article specify the jurisdiction that is given to each court. When jurisdiction of a certain character is by that article conferred on a particular court, the jurisdiction so conferred is exclusive unless in the clause conferring it or elsewhere in the Constitution the same jurisdiction, or jurisdiction of the same character, is conferred also on another court. For example, when appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the state is conferred by section 2, art. 6, on the Supreme Court, all the judicial power appertaining to an appellate court would be disposed of if it were not for the fact that elsewhere in the Constitution jurisdiction of that character in a limited degree is conferred on other courts, and to that extent the jurisdiction conferred in section 2 on the Supreme Court is curtailed. Appellate jurisdiction in a limited degree is in other sections conferred on the courts of appeals, and section 22, art. 6 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 234), confers jurisdiction of that character in a limited degree on circuit courts. Until the amendment of the Constitution in 1884 there was besides the Supreme Court but one appellate court, which was the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and its jurisdiction was limited in territory covering the city of St. Louis and four counties. Section 12, art. 6 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 218). But that court's appellate jurisdiction in that territory was exclusive, all appeals being required to go to that court in the first instance, but in cases of certain characters appeals lay from that court to the Supreme Court. By the amendment of 1884 the territorial jurisdiction of the St. Louis Court of Appeals was extended to embrace a large number of counties, and the Kansas City Court of Appeals was created covering the rest of the state. By that amendment, also, no appeal was allowed from a decision of one of those courts to the Supreme Court, but their appellate jurisdiction was limited to cases where the amount in dispute did not exceed $2,500, and within that limit they were courts of last resort. By that amendment, also, the General Assembly was authorized to create one more court of appeals, to change the limits of appellate districts, and to raise the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of those courts. Under that authority the General Assembly in 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 107 [Ann. St. 1906, § 1649a]) raised the pecuniary limit to $4,500, and in 1909 created the Springfield Court of Appeals (Acts 1909, p. 393), and raised the pecuniary limit to $7,500 (Acts 1909, p. 397). Then at the same session the General Assembly passed the act of June 12, 1909, under which the case of Houts v. Jackson was transferred to the Springfield court, which act is now assailed as being unconstitutional.

Unless expressly authorized to do so, a court has no authority to transfer a cause from it to another court, and thereby give the other court possession of the case "to hear and determine it," although the other court would have had jurisdiction of the case if it had come to it by due process. The conferring of jurisdiction belongs to the lawmaking power of the state. If, without the express power to transfer, a court should find itself in possession of a case of which it had no jurisdiction, the only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • State v. Hilburn
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1915
    ... ... And it ... has been said that the governmental power to establish courts ... and to define their jurisdiction is legislative in its ... character, belongs to the General Assembly, and is limited ... only by the Constitution. State ex rel. Dunham v ... Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S.W. 336; Brown on Jurisdiction, ... § 12. A constitutional provision that the judicial power ... shall be vested in certain courts therein enumerated ... [69 So. 790] ... prevents the [70 Fla. 78] Legislature from establishing other ... courts different in kind ... ...
  • State v. Giblin
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1929
    ... ... jurisdiction is legislative in character, belongs to the ... General Assembly, and is limited only by the Constitution, ... which is not a grant of power to the Legislature, but a ... limitation upon its power. See Brown on Jurisdiction, § 12; ... State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S.W ... The ... amendment to section 35 of article 5 of the Constitution ... adopted in 1910 was not a grant of legislative power but a ... removal of limitation found in that instrument upon the ... creation of more circuit courts than provided for theretofore ... ...
  • Burr v. Burr
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1912
    ... ... Burr, deceased, should go ... to those persons who are designated to take under the ... Statutes of Descent and Distribution of the state of ... Missouri. Jarboe v. Hey, 122 Mo. 341; Kendal v ... Kleason (Mass.), 9 L.R.A. 509; 4 Words and Phrases, ... Colmn. 3253; Johnson v ... unconstitutional, as will appear by reference to the cases of ... State ex rel. Dressed Beef, etc. Co. v. Nixon, 232 ... Mo. 496, 134 S.W. 538; State ex rel. O'Malley v ... Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S.W. 342; State ex rel ... Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo ... ...
  • Underwood v. City of Caruthersville
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1917
    ... ... law will recognize and protect. It has been repeatedly stated ... by the appellate courts of this State that the party need not ... actually be on the land, or keep servants there, but any act ... done by him on the premises indicating intention to ... S.W. 1076.] Thereafter the supreme court held the above ... mentioned section to be unconstitutional and void (see ... Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S.W. 336), and the ... cause was thereupon retransferred to this court, where, under ... the ruling of the Supreme Court, the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT