Begley v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 22869.,22869.
• Citation: 252 S.W. 84
• Parties: BEGLEY et al. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

252 S.W. 84

BEGLEY et al. v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRUST CO. et al.

No. 22869.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

May 22, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.

Action by Edith Ruth Begley and others against the Mississippi Valley Trust Company and another. From judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed in part; and affirmed in part.

Abington & Abington and Sam. M. Phillips, all of Poplar Bluff, for appellants.

Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce and Samuel H. Liberman, all of St. Louis, for respondents.

SMALL, C. I.

Appeal from the circuit court of Butler county.

This is a companion case to the case of Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Edith Ruth Begley, Effie M. Ruth, and George Begley, No. 22749, 252 S. W. 76, which we have just decided.

The petition in this case was filed April 3, 1920. The facts stated in the petition are the same as those stated in the answer in said cause No. 22749, with the further statement, as follows:

"Plaintiffs further state that the defendant Mississippi' Valley Trust Company has instituted its suit in the circuit court of Butler county, Mo., upon the above described $70,000 note upon its petition, a copy of which is herewith filed, marked `Exhibit A' and asked to be taken and considered as a part of this petition; that the defendants in that case (plaintiffs in this case) have filed their answer in said case, a copy of which is herewith filed, marked `Exhibit B' and asked to be taken and considered as a part of this petition, setting out the facts hereinabove pleaded and set forth; that said cause is now docketed and set for trial in the circuit court of Butler county, Mo., on Thursday, April 15, 1920, upon the petition and answer.

"Plaintiffs further state that since the institution of the suit last aforesaid, the defendant has filed suit on the same $70,000 note in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and has caused process to be served upon the plaintiffs George Begley and Effie M. Ruth, in said city of St. Louis; and plaintiffs say defendant has listed and filed a verified copy of said note for allowance and payment in the bankrupt estate of George Begley, Jr., now being administered in the United States District Court within and for the Southeastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri; and plaintiffs have good cause to believe and do believe, and so state the fact to be, that defendant is contemplating other and further vexatious litigation against these plaintiffs on account of and growing out of their signing said note aforesaid.

"Plaintiffs further state that the defendant Mississippi Valley Trust Company has now ordered its codefendant, Wm. McGuire, who is the duly qualified and acting clerk of the circuit court of Butler county, Mo., to dismiss, in vacation, the case filed in said Butler county circuit court and to dismiss plaintiffs' (defendants in that case) cross-action, and plaintiffs aver that, unless enjoined and restrained by an order of this court, said defendant Wm. McGuire will dismiss in said case, not only plaintiffs' cause of action, but the cross-action and cross-bill of defendants in that case (plaintiffs in this case).

"Plaintiffs further state that under the law of the state of Missouri the defendant Wm. McGuire and his codefendant Mississippi Valley Trust Company are not authorized to dismiss, in vacation, plaintiffs' (defendants in that case) "ross-action in said suit, and that the contemplated action of defendants so to do will work irreparable injury to plaintiffs, will result in a multiplicity of suits, and long and vexatious litigation.

"Plaintiffs further state that the circuit court of Butler county now has jurisdiction of said suit, filed in the circuit court of said county, and that said litigation can be determined speedily in said county, and that, if the case is dismissed and plaintiffs are sued in various counties and jurisdictions in the state of Missouri, it will entail a great expense upon plaintiffs in defending said actions, in securing the attendance of witnesses; will result in a multiplicity of vexatious suits whereby plaintiffs and each of them will suffer irreparable injury and damage.

"Plaintiffs further state that they have no adequate remedy at law in the premises, and unless granted injunctive relief herein will suffer irreparable injury and damage and be subjected to a multiplicity of vexatious suits.

"Wherefore, the premises considered, plaintiffs pray the court that the defendants be enjoined and restrained from dismissing said law suit aforesaid now pending in the circuit court of Butler county, Mo., and from negotiating or disposing of to a third party the $70,000 negotiable promissory note aforesaid, described in defendants' (plaintiffs in that case) petition hereto attached marked `Exhibit A'; or instituting other suits or further litigation against these plaintiffs on said note or concerning the same, or further prosecuting said case instituted in the circuit court of the city a St. Louis aforesaid, until this case can be adjudicated on its merits; that this suit be consolidated with the case of the Mississippi Valley Trust Company, a corporation v. Edith Ruth-Begley, Effie M. Ruth, and George Begley, now pending in the circuit court of Butler county, Mo., and set for trial on Thursday, April 15, 1920; and that the defendant be required to produce said 470,000 note, which it still has in its possession and under its control, in this court, and that this court by its judgment declare, adjudge, and decree said note to be null and void and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and meet in the premises.

                             "Sam M. Phillips
                             "Abington & Abington
                                "Attorneys for Plaintiffs."
                

The petition was duly verified.

Exhibit A was the petition in the prior suit in the Butler county circuit court by the Mississippi Valley Trust Company on said $70,000 note against Edith Ruth Begley, Me M. Ruth, and George Begley, brought to the 1920 April term of said court.

Exhibit B, referred to and made a part of the petition in the case before us, was the answer of said defendants in said prior suit, and was substantially the same as the answer in cause No. 22749, which we have just decided, except that it included the defendant Edith Ruth Begley in said answer, as well as defendants George Begley and Effie M, Ruth.

The defendant McGuire filed a demurrer to the petition on the ground that it does not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was sustained by the court and judgment rendered dismissing said cause as to defendant McGuire.

Defendant Mississippi Valley Trust Company also filed a demurrer, in words and figures as follows:

"Now comes the defendant Mississippi Valley Trust Company and, appearing specially for this purpose and without waiving the jurisdiction of the court, demurs to the petition of plaintiffs for the following reasons:

"(1) Because said petition shows on its face that the defendant is denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to it under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and under article 2, § 30, of the Constitution of Missouri."

"(3) Because the assumption of jurisdiction by the court would, as shown upon the face of the petition, deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and of article 2, § 30, of the Constitution of Missouri.

"(4) Because the petition shows upon its face that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause in this state.

"(5) Because the petition shows upon its face that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause in this state, so that plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law without recourse to equitable relief in this action. "

"(6) Because, without waiving the jurisdiction of the court, the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"(7) Because the plaintiffs are not entitled to any equitable relief since they have not come into court with clean hands, but participated in the alleged illegal transaction involved in the alleged compounding of a felony.

                           "Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce
                           "Henson & Woody, and
                           "David W. Hill
                             "Attorneys for Defendant."
                

Which said demurrer was sustained by the court, on the ground that the court land no jurisdiction in this cause.

Judgment was duly entered on said demurrer in favor of said defendant trust company and against the plaintiffs.

After unsuccessfully moving for a new trial, the plaintiffs appealed to this court.

It is insisted by respondent's learned counsel: That section 1180, R. S. 1019, which provides that: "Suits against corpo.. rations shall be commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued

* * * or in any county where such corporations shall have or usually keep an office or agent for the transaction of their usual and customary business," Is unconstitutional because section 1177, R. S. 1919, requires actions against the resident 0:1: the state to be brought "either in the county within which the defendant resides, or in the county within which the plaintiff resides and the defendant may be found." That therefore corporations, being persons within the meaning of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are thus denied the equal protection of the laws of this state relating to the venue of civil actions. In other words, that such laws make an arbitrary and unreasonable classification of individuals and corporations in fixing the venue of civil actions. In support of this proposition, the main case cited is McClung v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 279 Mo. 370, 214 S. W. 193, which held unconstitutional, because vicious class legislation...