State v. Scarritt
Citation | 128 Mo. 331,30 S.W. 1026 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HOFFMANN v. SCARRITT et al. |
Decision Date | 14 May 1895 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
The other essential facts are stated in the opinion.
Doggett & Rosenweig, for relator. Jas. W. Coburn, for respondents.
BARCLAY, J. (after stating the facts).
This is an original action in this court to obtain a writ of prohibition. It grows out of the suit of Walruff against the Weston Brewing Company, in the circuit court of Jackson county. That suit was begun January 9, 1894, by the filing of a petition, a copy of which will accompany this opinion. On the same day, the court (Judge Scarritt) heard an application in the case for a receiver, found the facts substantially as stated in the petition, appointed the plaintiff, Mr. Walruff, receiver of the corporation and of all its assets, and further ordered that the company transfer and deliver to the receiver all its personal and real property, of every description, including evidences of debt, book accounts, etc. The receiver was also required to give bond in the sum of $12,000 for the faithful performance of his duties, to file inventory, etc. The order of appointment contained other terms of direction for the receivership, but, so far as material to the controversy, they will sufficiently appear in the course of the opinion. The receiver duly qualified and took possession of the accessible property; but, in the course of his administration, the present controversy arose over one of the items claimed by the receiver as an asset of the corporation. A demand became due in Chicago, Ill., to said corporation, from an insurance company doing business there; and Mr. Hoffmann, a resident of this state, garnished the demand, in an action brought by him in Chicago against the insolvent company; whereupon Mr. Hoffmann, upon a formal application by the receiver, was cited to appear before the Jackson county circuit court, wherein the receivership was pending, and to answer for the contempt charged to have been committed by his interference with the property of the receivership by suit in Illinois, as aforesaid. Mr. Hoffmann moved to be discharged from the citation, on grounds which will appear further on; but the court denied the motion. Then he, as relator, began this action in this court, asking that a writ of prohibition issue to prevent Judge Scarritt from exercising any further jurisdiction over him in the matter of the alleged contempt.
The relator insists that the prohibition should go for two reasons:
1. It is claimed that the jurisdiction over the receivership in Missouri,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stobie
...For example, by appeal, but not by a proceeding like this"—Citing Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S. W. 558. In State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331, 30 S. W. 1026, it was again announced by this court: "The writ of prohibition may be invoked to check the use of judicial power when sought......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
...14, 92 S.W. 191; State ex rel. Delmar Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307, 65 S.W. 999; State ex rel. Hofmann v. Scarritt, 128 S.W. 340, 30 S.W. 1026; Winningham v. Trublood, 149 Mo. 580, 51 S.W. 399. (2) This action is addressed both (a) To the court's jurisdiction, conferred by statute, ......
-
The State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie
... ... This ... question is to be determined in the cases before the justice ... Wilson v. Berkstretter, 45 Mo. 283; Bowman's ... Case, 67 Mo. 146; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo ... 59; State ex rel. v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1; State ... ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331; State ex rel. v ... Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307; Schubach v. McDonald, ... 179 Mo. 163. The proper inquiry is, did the justice have ... jurisdiction of the general class of cases to which the ... particular case belongs, and not whether he had jurisdiction ... of the particular ... ...
-
State ex rel. Macon Creamery Co. v. Mix
...194 Mo. 14; State ex rel. v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163; State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331; State ex rel. Fabrico v. Johnson, 293 Mo. 302. There being no showing in the record that relator did not have an office in the c......