Foster v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
| Citation | 41 Mo. 61 |
| Parties | EMORY S. FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Submission on Agreed Case.
W. H. Blodgett, for plaintiff.
Attorney-General, for defendant.
Emory S. Foster, the public printer for the State, presented his account for allowance to the State Auditor for certain work done by him in the way of printing journals, laws, &c., and, the fund appropriated for the payment of such claims being exhausted, the Auditor issued to him a certificate of indebtedness for the amount. The Legislature, in passing a bill to meet and pay off certain deficiencies, refused to allow the whole amount embraced in the certificate, assuming that the law had been misconstrued, so as to make the account call for more work than was actually done, and the certificate included a larger sum than was really due. To settle the controversy, and give a construction to the law, the Legislature passed an act, approved March 11, 1867, providing that the Attorney-general, upon the part of the State, should submit to this court an agreed case or cases between the State and the public printer, and certain other officers named in the act, and making it the duty of this court to examine all questions of law or fact growing out of the demand in dispute, and whatever sum should be found due should be certified by the clerk to the auditor, who was authorized to draw a warrant thereon.
In accordance with the above act, this case is submitted on an agreed statement. A strange misapprehension seems to have existed in regard to the jurisdiction of this court. Here is an attempt to devolve on the court original jurisdiction in a matter which is the subject of ordinary litigation--a contention between parties for an amount of money. The second section of the sixth article of the Constitution declares that the Supreme Court, except in cases otherwise directed by the Constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction only. The only case where original jurisdiction is conferred is in the grant of power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and other remedial writs. This provision of the Constitution is not only eminently wise, but it is necessary for the protection of the court. Admit the power, and there would be nothing to prevent the Legislature at any time from passing a law to authorize parties throughout the State to make an agreed case and require an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Walbridge v. Valliant
...5; sections 2, 3, 4, 10; Laurence v. Dickey, 12 N. J. L. 368; Mackaboy v. Com., 2 Va. Cases, 268; Railroad v. Morton, 27 Mo. 317; State v. Foster, 41 Mo. 61. It issues supervisory power over inferior courts at any time. Edgar v. Greer, 14 Iowa 212; Lawton v. Com., 2 Caines, 182; Rex v. Glam......
-
In re Sizer
...is powerless to enlarge or curtail such original jurisdiction, and any statute attempting to do so is void. [11 Cyc. 706; Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61; Vail Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; State ex rel. v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488, 490; State ex rel. v. Miles, 210 Mo. 127, 184, 109 S.W. 595; State ex inf. v.......
-
State ex rel. R-1 School Dist. of Putnam County v. Ewing
...5 Mo. 285; State ex rel. Waterworth v. Harty, 275 Mo. 59, 204 S.W. 500; Vail, contestor v. Denning, contestee, 44 Mo. 210; Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61. But relators argue that to permit a counterclaim in any court in any mandamus proceeding would cause mandamus to 'degenerate into another la......
-
In re Sizer
...to enlarge or curtail such original jurisdiction, and any statute attempting to do so is void. And they have cited 11 Cyc. 706; Foster v. State, 41 Mo. 61, 62; Vail v. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210; State ex rel. v. Flentge, 49 Mo. 488, 490; State ex rel. v. Miles, 210 Mo. 127, 184, 109 S. W. 595; St......