Arnold v. Henry

• Decision Date: 13 March 1900
• Citation: 155 Mo. 48,55 S.W. 1089
• Parties: ARNOLD et al. v. HENRY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

55 S.W. 1089

155 Mo. 48

ARNOLD et al. v. HENRY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 13, 1900.

EQUITY — JURISDICTION — REMEDY AT LAW.

A court of equity has no jurisdiction of injunction proceedings to try title to a political office, since there is an adequate remedy at law.

In banc. Original application by H. C. Arnold and others against John W. Henry and others for a writ of prohibition. Granted.

This is an original proceeding in this court to prevent the circuit court of Jackson county from taking further cognizance of a suit by defendant Harris in said court to enjoin H. Clay Arnold, J. H. Lipscomb, and C. E. Washburn from interfering with said Harris' access to and use of the office of the board of election commissioners of Kansas City, its vaults, safes, books, records, papers, ballot boxes, tally sheets, forms, and other property pertaining to the said office of election commissioner, and from interfering with or molesting said Harris in the discharge of the duties of election commissioner of said city, until a judicial determination of the rights of Charles E. Washburn to the said office can be heard. Said suit for injunction was commenced about the 24th day of August, 1899. On application to Judge Henry, a temporary restraining order was granted enjoining said Arnold, Washburn, and Lipscomb from interfering with or preventing said Harris from having access to the office, records, papers, etc., of the board of election commissioners, and made the same returnable August 25, 1899, at which time the hearing was continued until August 28, 1899, on which last-mentioned day said defendants filed their motion in writing to dissolve said temporary injunction because said circuit court had no jurisdiction thereof. In the meantime said defendants therein made application to one of the judges of this court in vacation for a provisional writ of prohibition, which was granted, and afterwards, upon issues framed, was heard at this term of this court. The facts out of which this controversy arises are briefly these: On or about the ____ day of September, 1895, Joseph Harris was appointed and duly qualified as a commissioner of election for Kansas City, for a term of four years, and until his successor should be duly appointed and qualified. Said appointment was made under an act of the general assembly of this state approved May 31, 1895, and as such amended March 8, 1897, March 23, 1897, and March 26, 1897. Said Harris, together with H. Clay Arnold and J. H. Lipscomb, constituted the board of election commissioners of said city, and as such board they had the custody of the registry books, poll books, tally sheets, ballots, and ballot boxes, etc., and the keys to the office of said board of election commissioners. On the 19th day of June, 1899, the general assembly further amended the act creating said board, whereby section 91 of the act of May 31, 1895, as amended in 1897, was repealed, and in lieu thereof a new section enacted. Under this last amendment the governor, on August 21, 1899, appointed said Arnold, Lipscomb, and Washburn election commissioners, and they each took the oath and qualified as required by law, and afterwards took possession of the office, and of its official property and appurtenances. Mr. Harris, claiming that the appointment of Washburn was illegal, and in defiance of the law creating said board, brought his suit to enjoin the board from interfering with his occupancy of said office until Washburn's title could be determined.

Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., Sam B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. A. Reed, R. W. Quarles, Joseph S. Rust, H. C. Ward, and Elijah Robinson, for plaintiffs. Warner, Dean & McLeod and Gage, Ladd & Small, for defendants.

GANTT, C. J. (after stating the facts).

The contention of plaintiffs is that the bill for injunction, while nominally to preserve property...