City of Louisiana v. Lang
Decision Date | 28 June 1913 |
Citation | 158 S.W. 1,251 Mo. 664 |
Parties | CITY OF LOUISIANA v. W. K. LANG, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. -- Hon. David H. Eby Judge.
Transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
D. A Ball for appellant.
James E. Pew for respondent.
A jury in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas assessed a penalty of fifty dollars against defendant for violating an ordinance of the city of Louisiana which prohibits itinerant merchants from plying their vocation in that city without license. On the trial there was evidence tending to support the complaint. The evidence conflicted on the question whether defendant received his supplies from Chicago or St. Louis.
This court has no jurisdiction of this case. The demurrer to the complaint and the objection to the reception of any evidence were both put upon the simple ground that the complaint "stated no cause of action." Neither those nor the demurrers to the evidence, offered at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, raised any constitutional or Federal question. [Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685, 113 S.W. 1108.] There is not in the record any reference, direct or indirect, to either the State or Federal Constitution or any Federal statute or question whatsoever. No claim of any right under any or either of these, so far as the record shows, was set up in the trial court at any time or in any fashion.
The argument here seems to assume that a question sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court was involved in the ruling refusing instructions asked as follows:
After showing the ruling on these proffered instructions, the record states that "under the instructions of the court the jury returned" their verdict wherein they assessed defendant's punishment at a fine of fifty dollars.
The instruction in Canton v. McDaniel, 188 Mo. 207, 213 86 S.W. 1092, specifically invoked the protection of the Interstate Commerce Act, and in that respect materially differs from those refused in this case. If, however, it could be conceded that under this decision and others (Shewalter v. Railroad, 152 Mo. 548; Live Stock Commission Co. v. Railroad, 157 Mo. 518; Schwyhart v. Barrett, 223 Mo. 499; Bank v. Bank, 173 Mo. 158; Independence to use v. Knoepker & Nagel, 205 Mo. 341, et seq.) the refused instructions might in some circumstances have constituted an invocation of the protection of some constitutional provision or injected an...
To continue reading
Request your trial