State ex rel. Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Waltner

• Citation: 169 S.W.2d 697,350 Mo. 1021
• Decision Date: 25 March 1943
• Docket Number: 37566,37575,37724,37725
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of the Kansas City Public Service Company, a Corporation, Relator, v. Marion D. Waltner, Circuit Judge of the Independence Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Respondent. State of Missouri at the relation of Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, a Corporation, R. L. Willis and Garrett A. Walsh, Relators, v. R. B. Bridgeman, Judge of the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

169 S.W.2d 697

350 Mo. 1021

State of Missouri at the relation of the Kansas City Public Service Company, a Corporation, Relator, v. Marion D. Waltner, Circuit Judge of the Independence Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Respondent. State of Missouri at the relation of Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, a Corporation, R. L. Willis and Garrett A. Walsh, Relators, v. R. B. Bridgeman, Judge of the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri, Respondent

Nos. 37566, 37575, 37724, 37725

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 25, 1943

Writ made permanent in nos. 37724 and 37725 and nos. 37566 and 37575 dismissed.

Charles L. Carr, Carl E. Enggas and Paul Barnett for Kansas City Public Service Company, relator; Watson, Ess Groner, Barnett & Whittaker of counsel.

(1) Prohibition is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v Conran, 63 S.W.2d 135; State ex rel. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. Eby, 170 Mo. 497; 50 C. J. 656, 657 notes 70, 71; State ex rel. Bernero v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 517; State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256; State ex rel. Judah v. Fort, 210 Mo. 512; State ex rel. Page v. Terte, 324 Mo. 925, 25 S.W.2d 459; State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v Latshaw, 325 Mo. 909, 30 S.W.2d 105; Dahlberg v Fisse, 328 Mo. 213, 40 S.W.2d 606; State ex rel. McAllister v. Slate, 278 Mo. 570; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230; State ex rel. Wright v. McQuillin, 252 Mo. 334; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Beck, 330 Mo. 118, 63 S.W.2d 814; Peters v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618; State ex rel. Natl. Refining Co. v. Seehorn, 334 Mo. 547, 127 S.W.2d 418; State ex rel. Castlen v. Mulloy, 331 Mo. 776, 55 S.W.2d 294; State ex rel. Kopke v. Mulloy, 329 Mo. 1, 43 S.W.2d 806; State ex rel. Schoenfelder v. Owen, 152 S.W.2d 60; State ex rel. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Withrow, 133 Mo. 500; State ex rel. Hog Haven Farms v. Pearcy, 328 Mo. 560, 41 S.W.2d 403; Vitt v. Owens, 42 Mo. 512; State ex rel. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542; 50 C. J., p. 679; High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies (3rd Ed.) 734, sec. 781; Douglass v. White, 134 Mo. 228; State v. Meyers, 14 S.W.2d 447; State v. Mitts, 29 S.W.2d 125; State ex rel. Scott v. Smith, 176 Mo. 90; Edmonds v. Scharff, 279 Mo. 78; State ex rel. Sansone v. Wofford, 111 Mo. 526; State v. Bailey, 334 Mo. 322, 126 S.W.2d 224; Secs. 1060, 1061, 1062, R. S. Mo. 1939; State ex rel. Sawyer v. Kelly, 330 Mo. 143, 48 S.W.2d 864; State ex rel. Harris v. Galloway, 21 S.W.2d 228; State ex rel. Bixman v. Denton, 128 Mo.App. 304; State ex rel. Dunlap v. Higbee, 328 Mo. 1066, 43 S.W.2d 825; State ex rel. Lentz v. Fort, 178 Mo. 518; State ex rel. Renfroe v. Wear, 129 Mo. 619; Ex parte Bedard, 106 Mo. 616; State ex rel. Brady v. Evans, 184 Mo. 632; State ex rel. Kochtitzky v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175; State ex rel. Bixman v. Denton, 128 Mo.App. 304; State ex rel. Hart v. Mazuch, 68 S.W.2d 923; In re Drainage Dist. v. Richardson, 227 Mo. 252; State ex rel. Ward v. Lubke, 29 Mo.App. 555; State ex rel. Ford v. Hogan, 324 Mo. 1130, 27 S.W.2d 21; State v. Creighton, 330 Mo. 1176, 52 S.W.2d 556; State ex rel. Am., etc., Co. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329; State ex rel. St. Louis Cooperage Co. v. Green, 92 S.W.2d 930. (2) Independent of proof of actual prejudice, this court should exercise its discretion by making the alternative rule in prohibition absolute. State ex rel. v. Eby, 170 Mo. 497; State ex rel. Natl. Refining Co. v. Seehorn, 127 S.W.2d 418; State ex rel. Judah v. Fort, 210 Mo. 512. (3) The affidavits for change of venue were sufficient. Secs. 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 12402, 14969, R. S. 1939; Barnes v. Construction Co., 257 Mo. 175; Robbins v. Boulware, 190 Mo. 33; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 2 S.W.2d 713; State ex rel. v. Talty, 166 Mo. 529; State ex rel. Kansas v. Knights of Father Matthew, 164 Mo.App. 361; Holmes v. Royal Loan Assn., 128 Mo.App. 329; State ex rel. Hanlon v. Maplewood, 99 S.W.2d 138; Raley v. Guinn, 76 Mo. 263; McDaniel v. Sprick, 297 Mo. 424; Secs. 913, 914, R. S. 1939; State ex inf. Mitchell v. Heath, 132 S.W.2d 1001; State ex inf. McAllister v. Bird, 295 Mo. 345. (4) The commissioner properly held that relator did not waive its applications for change of venue. Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544; Feedler v. Schroeder, 59 Mo. 364; Winningham v. Trueblood, 149 Mo. 572; Julian v. Kansas City Star, 209 Mo. 35; Cook v. Globe Ptg. Co., 227 Mo. 471; Tilles v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 609; Houston v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 249 Mo. 332; Secs. 921, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1065, 1066, R. S. 1939; Raming v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 157 Mo. 477; A. B. Richards Medicine Co. v. Reeves, 266 S.W. 594; Smith v. Post P. & P. Co., 68 P. 119; Price v. Lucky Four, etc., Co., 136 P. 1021; State ex rel. v. Ballord-Trimble Lbr. Co., 139 N.W. 135; Brashier v. J. C. O'Connor & Sons, 180 So. 67; Schwab v. American Yeoman, 305 Mo. 148; Wall Inv. Co. v. Schumacher, 125 S.W.2d 838; Langdon v. Kleeman, 278 Mo. 236; State ex rel. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Shain, 98 S.W.2d 690; Chappee v. Lubrite Refining Co., 85 S.W.2d 1034; State ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v. Becker, 77 S.W.2d 100; State ex rel. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Shain, 66 S.W.2d 871; Cannon v. Nickles, 151 S.W.2d 472; Carpenter v. Alton R. Co., 148 S.W.2d 68.

Madden, Freeman & Madden for Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company et al., relators.

(1) The record discloses that in both the Trinastich and Kassebaum cases Judge Waltner was disqualified by actual bias and prejudice; and the commissioner properly so ruled. People ex rel. v. District Court, 152 P. 149; Keen v. Brown, 46 Fla. 487, 490, 35 So. 401; Stamp v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 404; Chenault v. Spencer, 68 S.W. 128; State ex rel. v. Fullerton, 183 P. 979; People v. Lennon, 200 N.Y.S. 510; State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 52 P. 317; Rugenstein v. Ottenheimer, 152 P. 215; In re Cameron, 151 S.W. 64. (2) The applications of Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company for change of venue in both the Trinastich and Kassebaum cases, and the application of Garrett A. Walsh in the Kassebaum case, were in proper form and deprived Judge Waltner of jurisdiction to take any action other than to transfer such causes to another division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri; and the commissioner properly so ruled. State v. Hinton, 22 So. 617; 23 Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.), p. 437; 35 C. J. 432; Blodgett v. Hall, 32 N.Y.S. 788; 4 Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.), p. 322; LaGrange Elevator v. Richter, 129 S.W.2d 22; Douglass v. White, 134 Mo. 228; Secs. 1060, 2121, R. S. 1939; Laws 1905, p. 121; Jenkins v. Hill, 57 Mo. 122. (3) The Trinastich and Kassebaum applications for change of venue to another county were insufficient upon their face and were not supported by any evidence conferring upon Judge Waltner jurisdiction to enter orders of transfer; the conduct, moreover, of Judge Waltner in connection therewith was arbitrary and unjudicial; as a result the purported orders of transfer were extrajurisdictional and void; and the commissioner properly so ruled. (a) Under provisions of Sec. 1062, R. S. Mo. 1939, in counties having a population of 75,000 or more, the issue as to change of venue from the county is created by affidavit but must be determined by evidence. State v. Hancock, 7 S.W.2d 275. (b) The affidavits offered as "evidence" consisted of mere hearsay conclusions and were insufficient as a matter of law. State v. Hancock, 7 S.W.2d 275; State v. Hicks, 33 S.W.2d 923; State v. Tummons, 34 S.W.2d 122. (c) The applications for transfer to another county were upon their face, and under the evidence, untimely. State ex rel. v. Landon, 289 S.W. 661. (d) The conduct of Judge Waltner in ordering the transfers with knowledge of the contents of the affidavits offered as "evidence," was an arbitrary and unjudicial act, violative of due process and manifestly extrajurisdictional. Ex parte William R. Nelson, 251 Mo. 63; Dougan v. Sun Fire, 39 Mo.App. 676; Knapp v. Standley, 45 Mo.App. 264; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Fowler, 113 Mo. 458; Jeffray & Co. v. Claflin Co., 119 Mo. 117; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422; Commonwealth Trust v. Reagan, 193 Mo.App. 290; State ex rel. v. Skinker, 25 S.W.2d 472. (4) The transfers of the Trinastich and Kassebaum cases to respondent being extrajurisdictional and void, respondent acquired no jurisdiction therein; no jurisdiction was conferred upon respondent by waiver or otherwise; and the commissioner properly so ruled. State ex rel. v. Fort, 210 Mo. 512; State ex rel. v. Galloway, 21 S.W.2d 228; State ex rel. v. Higbee, 328 Mo. 1066, 43 S.W.2d 825; Mertens v. McMahon, 334 Mo. 175, 66 S.W.2d 127; Cole v. Cole, 89 Mo.App. 228; State ex rel. v. Knight, 26 S.W.2d 1011; State ex rel. v. Sevier, 98 S.W.2d 980; Pennfield v. Vaughan, 169 Mo. 371; State ex rel. v. Bacon, 107 Mo. 627; State v. Bailey, 126 S.W.2d 224; State ex rel. v. Bates, 286 S.W. 420. (5) Prohibition is the proper remedy; and the commissioner properly so ruled. State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 232 S.W. 1002; State ex rel. v. Bird, 110 S.W.2d 386; State ex rel. v. Cowan, 107 S.W.2d 805; State ex rel. v. Higbee, 43 S.W.2d 825.

Schultz & Bodney, Walter A. Raymond, C. W. Prince and C. R. Leslie for Marion D. Waltner, respondent.

(1) Relator in prohibition may not, for the purpose of impugning a record actually made below, draw on facts outside the record of the lower court in order to show that it is acting without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Conran v. Duncan, 333 Mo. 673, 63 S.W.2d 135. (2) If the court has jurisdiction of the general class of cases to which a particular case belongs, it is said to then possess jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of such cases, and therefore is authorized to perform the necessary judicial function with respect to them if the parties...