Britton v. Steber
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 62 Mo. 370 |
| Parties | JAMES H. BRITTON, Petitioner, v. LOUIS A. STEBER, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Application for Certiorari.
H. A. Clover, for Petitioner.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to award a certiorari not only to inferior courts, but to persons invested by the legislature with power to decide on the property or rights of the citizen, even in cases where they are authorized by statute finally to hear and determine, if the jurisdiction be not taken away by express words. (4 Hawk., 144; 1 Galk., 146; 1 Lord Raym., 580; Lawton vs. Commissioners of Cambridge, 2 Cai., 179; Le Roy vs. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 20 Johns, 430; Lynde vs. Noble, 20 Id., 80; Bradhurst vs. First Great S. W. Turnpike Co., 16 Id., 8; Ex-Mayor of Albany, 23 Wend., 277.)
But a certiorari for such purpose is not to be allowed before the case is finally adjudicated below. The office of the writ is not to withdraw the case before trial, but subsequently to cause it to be reviewed. (Lynde vs. Noble, 20 Johns, 80, and cases cited by Judge Lindley in his opinion on a former application for the writ.)
W. B. Thompson, for Petitioner.
I. Though a statute declares that no appeal shall be allowed from an inferior tribunal, but that its decisions shall be final, yet the Supreme Court may review those decisions on certiorari.
II. Though a statute directs that no certiorari shall issue to review or remove into the Supreme Court any proceeding had in pursuance of it, yet a certiorari may issue to bring up proceedings, which are not in pursuance of the statute, though they are had under pretence of it. (Ackerman vs. Taylor, 8 N. J., 3, 268, 305.)
III. While the right of appeal depends upon statutory provisions, it is equally well settled, that in the absence of express prohibition, a certiorari will lie in the absence of legislative restriction, when a court acts in a summary manner, or in a new course different from the common law. (Henry vs. Drage, 1 Minn., 166.)
Henderson & Shields, for Petitioner.
I. Though a statute declares that no appeal shall lie from an inferior tribunal, and that its decisions shall be final, yet the Supreme Court may review those decisions on certiorari. (
II. In proceedings by certiorari at common law, the Supreme Court determines the questions involved upon the record of the court below, and affirms the judgment of the court below, if regular and legal, if otherwise, it quashes the whole proceedings. (.)
Chandler & Young, for Petitioner.
Geo. A. Madill, for Respondents.
I. The original jurisdiction of this court, and of the St. Louis Court of Appeals is the same. (New Const. Mo., Art. 6, §§ 3, 12.) Each court has the power to issue writs of certiorari, and to hear and determine the same. Bearing in mind that the case which the petition seeks to have reviewed by this court, is a contest of an election for the office of mayor, it will be seen on a reference to section 12 of Art. 6 of the constitution, that it is a case within the final appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, provided this petitioner is required like other litigants to be content with the original jurisdiction of the courts of his own city and county.
In other words, this court is asked to hear indirectly by resort to the writ of certiorari a case, which, by the constitution of the State, it has no jurisdiction to hear on appeal.
The court have examined this case attentively, and whilst there are many questions involved upon which doubts exist, they have unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the writ should be refused for the following reason: Our present constitution has organized an appellate court in St. Louis county and given to it final jurisdiction, except in certain specified instances, and the only case in which its judgment can be revised as to officers is where the title to an office under this State is brought in contest. In every case respecting the title to an office, not under the State, it was obviously intended that its judgment should be final.
If a writ of error will not lie or an appeal be granted, then certainly a certiorari, which in effect performs the functions of an appeal or writ of error, ought not to be granted. It would be permitting this court by indirect means to assume a jurisdiction which the constitution directly prohibits it from exercising by the usual modes of procedure. If the certiorari had been issued by the Court of Appeals, which possessed undoubted jurisdiction, and its judgment thereon was final, that would amount to a convincing argument that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Kansas & Texas Coal Railway v. Shelton
...where an appeal or writ of error is available to a party, he can not have the writ of certiorari. This rule is elementary. Britton v. Steber, 62 Mo. 370; State ex rel. Valliant, 123 Mo. 524; State ex rel. v. Edwards, 104 Mo. 125; State ex rel. v. County Court, 45 Mo.App. 387; Birdsall v. Ph......
-
The State ex rel. Walbridge v. Valliant
...show that this court has jurisdiction, and that it has not hesitated to exercise it in cases like the present. The case of Britton v. Steber, 62 Mo. 370, a certiorari proceeding relied on by announces a different doctrine as to jurisdiction, to the effect that certiorari will not lie where ......
-
State ex rel. Gilman v. Robertson
... ... (1) ... Certiorari is not proper under the facts in this case and ... this court is without jurisdiction. Britton v ... Steber, 62 Mo. 370; In re Garesche, 85 Mo. 469; ... State ex rel. v. Phillips, 96 Mo. 570; State ex ... rel. v. Court of Appeals, 99 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips
...of section 6, of the amendment adopted in 1884. The contention that it must thus be limited cannot prevail. The case of Britton v. Steber, 62 Mo. 370, is cited in support of that contention, and it was also for a similar purpose in State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217, 6 S.W. 709, but it was ......