Beekman Lumber Co. v. Acme Harvester Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1908
• Parties: BEEKMAN LUMBER CO. v. ACME HARVESTER CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

114 S.W. 1087

215 Mo. 221

BEEKMAN LUMBER CO. v. ACME HARVESTER CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 16, 1908.

1. COURTS (§ 231) — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — MISSOURI — CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS — AUTHORITY EXERCISED UNDER UNITED STATES.

Const. art. 6, § 12 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 218), giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction where the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under the United States is drawn into question, was intended to give that court jurisdiction in those cases where the Supreme Court of the United States would have jurisdiction of appeals from the state Supreme Court under the act of Congress using similar language; and where a petition in bankruptcy was filed against defendant in the United States District Court of another state, and plaintiff brought an action against defendant in the circuit court of this state, after which the District Court enjoined plaintiff from further prosecuting its action, and defendant pleaded bankruptcy and the injunction in abatement of the action, but the circuit court held that the injunction and petition in bankruptcy were not a bar to the action, the authority of the United States was drawn into question so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction under section 12.

2. COURTS (§ 97) — RULES OF DECISION — DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES COURTS — FEDERAL QUESTION.

As the United States Supreme Court is the final authority as to what constitutes a federal question, its decisions must control on such question.

3. COURTS (§ 142) — COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION — CIRCUIT COURTS.

The circuit courts of this state are courts of general jurisdiction.

4. COURTS (§ 492) — CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING JURISDICTION — PRIORITY OF JURISDICTION.

Where the circuit court has jurisdiction of garnishment proceedings, and the money garnished is within its territorial jurisdiction, defendant, claiming that it has no jurisdiction because the funds are in the custody of a federal court, must show that such court is one of exclusive jurisdiction and has first obtained jurisdiction over the fund.

5. BANKRUPTCY (§ 20) — CONFLICTING JURISDICTION — STATE COURTS.

An adjudication in bankruptcy by a United States District Court operates to place the bankrupt's property in the custody of the law, and thereafter that court has exclusive jurisdiction of the property as against state courts.

6. BANKRUPTCY (§ 20) — CONFLICTING JURISDICTION — STATE COURTS.

In garnishment proceedings in a state court, where defendant pleaded an adjudication in bankruptcy, evidence held to show that the United States District Court had refused to make an adjudication and that the bankruptcy proceedings had been abandoned.

7. BANKRUPTCY (§ 20) — CONFLICTING JURISDICTION — STATE COURTS.

The mere filing of a petition in bankruptcy without a subsequent adjudication does not, ipso facto, place the bankrupt's property in the custody of the federal District Court so as to prevent it from being garnished in an action in a state court.

8. BANKRUPTCY (§ 105) — RESTRAINING INTERFERENCE — POWER TO GRANT INJUNCTION.

Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, 30 Stat. 545 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3420), makes the District Courts of the United States courts of bankruptcy within their respective territorial limits, with such legal and equitable powers as will enable them to exercise the jurisdiction. Section 11 (30 Stat. 549 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3426]) provides that a suit founded upon a pending claim from which a discharge would be a release shall be stayed until after adjudication or dismissal of the petition. Section 2, subsec. 15 (30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421]), authorizes the District Court to make such orders and issue such process as may be necessary to enforce the act. Rev. St. § 720 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581), forbids United States courts to stay proceedings in state courts except where injunctions are authorized in bankruptcy cases. A petition in bankruptcy was filed in the United States District Court of one state, and that court, without notice or service, issued an injunction to restrain plaintiff from prosecuting a garnishment action against defendant in a state court of another state. No adjudication of bankruptcy was made, and the bankruptcy proceedings were abandoned. Held, that the injunction was not a bar to the action in the state court.

9. INJUNCTION (§ 205) — ENJOINING SUITS AT LAW — OPERATION OF INJUNCTION.

An injunction to restrain legal proceedings does not operate upon the court, but on the parties to the litigation, and prohibits them from resorting to the legal remedy.

10. ACTION (§ 11) — COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AS DEMAND.

The commencement of an action for money is a sufficient demand.

11. DAMAGES (§ 69) — INTEREST — ACTIONS FOR TORT.

Interest is not given as a matter of right in actions for tort.

12. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1062) — HARMLESS ERROR — SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO JURY.

Where an action was based on defendant's written statement of the items of the account sued on, and the balance claimed was admitted, a judgment on a directed verdict for plaintiff for the amount of the account, with interest, will not be reversed because the court did not permit the jury to compute the amount of the interest at the legal rate, since under Rev. St. 1899, § 865 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 812), a judgment must not be reversed for errors which do not materially affect the merits.

Woodson, Lamm, and Graves, JJ., dissenting.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. B. Teasdale, Judge.

Action by the Beekman Lumber Company against the Acme Harvester Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Karnes, New & Krauthoff, for appellant. Stewart Taylor, for respondent.

GANTT, C. J.

This cause originated in the circuit court of Jackson county, December 2, 1903, in which the plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, sought to recover of defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, and having its chief office and place of business at Peoria in said state, $1,453.58 for lumber sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, an itemized account of which was annexed to and filed with the petition. On December 24, 1903, a motion was filed by the defendant to stay the proceedings on the ground that there was pending against the defendant in the district court of Illinois a petition in involuntary bankruptcy. On January 11, 1904, motion to stay the proceedings was sustained. On March 30, 1904, the plaintiff filed its motion to set aside the stay of proceedings, which motion was sustained on May 14, 1904. On October 12, 1904, defendant filed an answer in the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction and a plea to the merits in the following words: "Now on this day comes the Acme Harvester Company, and appearing especially for the purpose of this plea only, pleads to the jurisdiction of this court and says this cause should not be prosecuted. Defendant further avers that heretofore in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Southern Division, a court of competent jurisdiction in that behalf, the petition was filed to adjudicate the Acme Harvester Company a bankrupt. Thereafter it was by said court ordered and adjudged that Beekman Lumber Company be enjoined until the further order of that court from maintaining this proceeding or prosecuting this action. The proceedings resulting in such injunction were duly had, and the order and judgment of injunction were rendered. The defendant, by way of protestation and for answer to the petition of the plaintiff, denies generally each and every allegation therein contained." On June 20, 1905, plaintiff filed a reply in words as follows: "Plaintiff, for reply to the answer of the defendant, denies each and every allegation of new matter therein made or contained. For further reply, plaintiff shows to the court that the matters set forth in defendant's answer were set forth in defendant's motion to stay proceedings herein filed December 24, 1903, which motion was by this court sustained; that afterwards on the __ day of ____, 1904, this plaintiff filed its motion to set aside said stay order on the ground named therein, that said matters did not entitle defendant to a stay; that said motion was sustained and no appeal was taken therefrom, and thereby the matters and things set forth in defendant's answer were adjudged against it and became res adjudicata, and the defendant cannot now be heard to urge the same, wherefore plaintiff prays judgment as in his petition." The case was tried at the April term, 1905, and at the close of the evidence the trial court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and thereupon, in accordance with the directions of the court, the jury did return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assess the damages at the sum of $1,587.52, and judgment was rendered accordingly in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant; and the court further found that the defendant not having denied the grounds of attachment, the same stood confessed as true, and plaintiff's attachment was sustained, and the garnishee, Union Avenue Bank of Commerce, having admitted in its answer the possession of $1,342.45, the money of the defendant, it was further considered and adjudged by the court that plaintiff have and recover of and from said garnishee the said sum so confessed, and have execution therefor, and that the garnishee be allowed $25 as attorney's fees, and that defendant be given credit on the judgment for whatever sum the plaintiff may collect from the garnishee. In due time the defendant filed its motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which was heard and overruled by the court, and defendant excepted; thereupon the appeal was granted to this court in due form on July 15, 1905, and leave was given the defendant to file a bill of exceptions, which was by the court...