Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 05 July 1889 |
| Citation | 21 P. 1071,42 Kan. 223 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, K. & W. R. CO. v. HARRIS et al., County Commissioners, et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
1. The supreme court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction given to it by the constitution and the statutes, may protect its own jurisdiction, its own process, its own proceedings, its own orders, and its own judgments; and may, in cases pending before it, prohibit or restrain the performance of any act which might interfere with the proper exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in such cases.
2. When service of original process is actually made upon the defendant, the case must then be considered as having been commenced at the date of the process so served, and such date will determine the time from which the right of the court to take jurisdiction to hear and determine the case must be computed.
Original proceeding in mandamus. Application for a writ of prohibition.
Geo R. Peck, A. A. Hurd, and C. N. Sterry, for plaintiff.
F P.Cochran, J. G. Waters, and Madden Bros., for defendants.
This is an action of mandamus, brought originally in this court by the Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad Company against the board of county commissioners and the county clerk of Chase county, to compel the defendants to issue to the plaintiff certain county bonds; and in such action an application is made by the plaintiff for a writ of prohibition to restrain and enjoin the county attorney and the district court of Chase county, while this action is pending in this court, from further proceedings in an action pending in that court, instituted by the county attorney in the name of the state of Kansas, for the purpose of restraining and enjoining the county commissioners and the county clerk of that county from issuing to the railroad company the aforesaid bonds. The principal question presented by this application is whether the supreme court, under the constitution and the statutes of this state, has the power to grant the relief sought by the aforesaid application. The constitutional jurisdiction of the supreme court is fixed and defined by sections 1 and 3 of article 3 of the constitution, which read as follows:
It will be seen from an inspection of these sections that the supreme court of Kansas is "a Supreme court," and that it has "original jurisdiction in proceedings in quo warranto, mandamus, and habeas corpus, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law; " and it would therefore seem that whenever such court acts within the rightful and proper range of either its original or appellate jurisdiction, as prescribed by the constitution and the statutes, its action would be supreme and conclusive, so far as the state of Kansas is concerned. But can the supreme court exercise jurisdiction not coming within the terms or provisions of the constitution and the statutes? The original jurisdiction given by the constitution to the supreme court is specific and named, while the appellate jurisdiction is such as may be provided by law. Hence, with respect to the original jurisdiction as is prescribed by the constitution, and not anymore nor any less; and that, as neither or mentioned in the constitution, such matters cannot rightfully come within the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. But this will not prevent the supreme court from exercising jurisdiction with regard to such matters, where they are mere incidents or auxiliaries necessary for the rightful and proper exercise of the jurisdiction actually conferred upon the supreme court by the constitution and statutes. Inherently, the supreme court must have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannon v. State, 113,267.
...that courts have inherent powers ... to effectuate the functions and duties imposed upon them."); C.K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Chase Co., 42 Kan. 223, 224, 21 P. 1071 (1889) ("Inherently the supreme court must have the power to protect its own jurisdiction, its own process, its own proc......
-
Solomon v. State
...performance of any act which might interfere with the proper exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in such cases." C., K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Chase Co., 42 Kan. 223, Syl. ¶ 1, 21 P. 1071 (1889)."It can hardly be supposed that the action of the supreme court may be thwarted, impeded,......
-
Stevens v. Larwill
...to a single individual, who at the time was a contestant in such prior pending partition suit. Seibel v. Simeon, 62 Mo. 257; Railroad v. Harris, 42 Kan. 223; Trust Co. v. Street Co., 177 U.S. 61; Co. v. Wells, 99 Mo.App. 641; Mishawka Co. v. Powell, 98 Mo.App. 530; Purdy v. Gault, 19 Mo.App......
-
State ex rel. West v. Cobb
...ex rel. v. Kent, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 826; Wolff v. Mathews, 39 Mo. App. 376; Hutsonpiller v. Stover, 12 Grat. (Va.) 579; Chicago, etc. v. Chase Co., 42 Kan. 223; Kentucky v. Denison, 24 How. 66; State ex rel. v. Superior Court (Wash.) 42 P. 123; State v. Sharp, 27 Minn. 39; Mayor, etc., v. D......
-
Opinion: Testimony Concerning the Separation of Powers and the Judiciary
...Kan. 803, 60 P 1068, 1075 (1900). [33] Id. at 1074. [34]In re Sims, supra note 29, 37 P at 135. [35] See Chicago, K. & W R. Co. v. Harris, 42 Kan. 223, Syl. ¶ 1, 21 P 1071 (1889) (noting that courts are given jurisdiction "by the constitution and the statutes"). [36]"As to the doctrine of s......