Brookline Canning & Packing Co. v. Evans

• Citation: 142 S.W. 319,238 Mo. 599
• Parties: BROOKLINE CANNING & PACKING CO. v. EVANS.
• Decision Date: 23 December 1911
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

142 S.W. 319

238 Mo. 599

BROOKLINE CANNING & PACKING CO. v. EVANS.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

December 23, 1911.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 305)—ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS—DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS.

A suit was commenced by a corporation in a justice's court for a balance due on stock subscriptions. The defendant showed that the corporation had been adjudged a bankrupt, and a trustee appointed who collected from different stockholders different sums, and paid over a small balance to the corporation after closing his administration, and that the present suit was in pursuance of action on the part of the corporation thereafter, and was to collect balances due from delinquent stockholders, so as to equalize the burden among those who had paid in full. The defendant contends that this is a suit in equity. Held, the suit was merely an action at law, and was not in equity, and as the justice had jurisdiction of the case stated in the petition, even though the defendant might have been accountable only in equity, that fact would not render the action one in equity, but would only go to show that the judgment therein was erroneous, and, as it could have been corrected by appeal, the defendant was not deprived of his property without due process of law.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 46)—ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS—DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS.

Where, in an action against a person upon his obligation as a stockholder, the points of defenses raised at the trial and discussed in the defendant's brief on appeal could all be considered and adjudged without reference to the Constitution, they call for no interpretation of any clause thereof, and no constitutional question is raised.

3. COURTS (§ 231) — MISSOURI — APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME COURT—CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

On an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, the Supreme Court cannot obtain jurisdiction upon a mere claim that a constitutional question is involved, where no such question in fact exists.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.

Action by the Brookline Canning & Packing Company against J. B. Evans. From a judgment for plaintiff in the circuit court on appeal from a judgment of the justice in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals.

Henry C. Young, for appellant. J. J. Gideon, G. D. Kirby, and J. C. West, for respondent.

VALLIANT, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for $100 rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Greene county circuit court. The suit was begun in a justice's court, judgment for plaintiff there for $100, appeal by the defendant to the circuit court, trial de novo there, and judgment for plaintiff against defendant, and the surety on his bond, for $100, from which judgment the defendant has taken this appeal.

Since the appellant's main insistance is that this is a suit in equity, therefore the justice had no jurisdiction, and the circuit court by appeal acquired no jurisdiction, we deem it proper to copy the original petition or statement of the cause of action filed in the justice's court which is as follows: "State of Missouri, County of Greene. Before C. A. Hubbard, Justice of the Peace, Campbell Township. Brookline Canning & Packing Co. vs. J. B. Evans. Plaintiff for its cause of action states that it is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri; that on or about the 27th day of January, 1903, the defendant purchased of the then owner 6 shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff of the face value of $400.00, and there was still unpaid on said stock at the time plaintiff so purchased it 50 per cent. thereof or $200.00; that defendant well knew this fact at the time he purchased said stock; that defendant has since said purchase paid on the balance due on said stock $100.00; that there is still due on said balance $100.00; that the defendant is now the owner of said stock; that this plaintiff has by resolution of the board of directors duly made a call for the unpaid portion of said sum due on said stock and defendant has received due notice thereof, but has failed and refused to pay said sum or any part thereof to this plaintiff; that the said sum of $100.00 is now due plaintiff and unpaid, wherefore plaintiff prays for judgment for said sum, to wit, $100.00, together with the costs of this suit." No answer or other pleading on the part of defendant was filed. When the cause came on for trial in the circuit court, defendant "objected to the introduction of any evidence in the case, for the reason that the statement filed in the cause before the justice failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action whatever; also for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action sought to be adjudicated and determined; for the reason that the plaintiff herein had no capacity at that time to sue and the plaintiff is not...