Francis v. Blair

• Citation: 89 Mo. 291
• Parties: FRANCIS, Mayor of St. Louis v. BLAIR and others, Police Com'rs.
• Decision Date: 21 June 1886
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

89 Mo. 291

FRANCIS, Mayor of St. Louis

v.BLAIR and others, Police Com'rs.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 21, 1886.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court.

Suit in equity to enjoin the defendants from enforcing a resolution adopted by them as police commissioners, under which resolution they had assumed the right to exclude plaintiff, as mayor, from all interference with the police force of the city. Decree for defendants, and appeal therefrom by plaintiff.L. Bell and J. O. Broadhead, for appellant, Francis, Mayor of St. Louis. G. Campbell, A. & J. F. Lee, and J. M. Holmes, for respondents, Blair and others, Police Com'rs.

HENRY, C. J.

The appellant, on May 5, 1886, filed in the St. Louis circuit court a petition for an injunction, in words and figures as follows:

“Plaintiff states that he is the mayor of the city of St. Louis, duly elected to said office, and in possession of the same, and in the exercise of the duties, functions, rights, privileges, and powers pertaining and belonging to said office; that the defendants are members of the board of police commissioners of said city of St. Louis, duly appointed and commissioned to said board under the law in such cases made and provided; that the said board of police commissioners of the city of St. Louis was created and exists by virtue of eleven certain acts of the general assembly of the state of Missouri, which acts are approved, respectively, March 27, 1861; December 12, 1863; February 5, 1864; January 25, 1865; February 18, 1865; January 25, 1866; March 15, 1866; March 13, 1867; March 24, 1873; February 17, 1875; and March 23, 1875; and that the provisions contained in the above enactment are compiled and printed at page 1527 and following of the second volume of the Revised Statutes of Missouri in 1879; that it is provided by section 3 of the act of March 27, 1861, above referred to, as amended by section 1 of the act of December 12, 1863, also above referred to, that the board of police commissioners of the city of St. Louis shall consist of four commissioners, with the mayor of said city for the time being, or whosoever may be lawfully acting in that capacity, who shall be ex officio president of said board, and said board shall appoint one of their members as vice-president, who shall act during the absence of the president. It is further provided by the laws aforesaid that the four commissioners, being the commissioners other than the mayor of St. Louis, shall be appointed by the governor of the state of Missouri by and with the advice and consent of the senate; and it shall be the duty of said police board within the city of St. Louis to preserve the public peace; prevent crime, and arrest offenders; protect the rights of persons and property; guard the public health; preserve order at elections, at public meetings, and places of public occasions; prevent and remove nuisances; provide police protection at fires; protect emigrants and travelers; and enforce the observance of laws relating to elections, to Sunday, to pawnbrokers, gamblers, intemperance, lotteries, vagrants, disorderly persons, and the public health; and to enforce all ordinances of the city and laws of the state which may properly be enforceable by a police force; and to make rules and regulations not inconsistent with the above acts for the appointment, employment, uniforming, discipline, trial, and government of the police, which shall be obeyed by the force on pain of dismissal, or other lighter punishment, as the board may adjudge.

“The plaintiff states that since he has held the office of mayor of St. Louis he has attended the meetings of said board, and has at all times been and is now ready and willing to act with said board, and to exercise the power, duty, and authority imposed and conferred on him as mayor of the city of St. Louis by the above-mentioned acts; and that he has duly qualified as a member of said police board by taking and filing the oath prescribed in section 2 of the act of March 27, 1861, aforesaid; that at a regular meeting of said board of police commissioners, held in the city of St. Louis on the fourth day of May, 1886, the board adopted a preamble and resolution, in words and figures as follows:

“'Whereas, in the opinion of this board, it is the meaning and intention of the law establishing the metropolitan police system in this city that the entire management and control of the department should be in the hands of the board of police commissioners, and, through them, in such one of their number as they might select as vice-president; and whereas, such has been the uniform custom of the department from the beginning: now, therefore, to remove any misapprehensions which may exist in the premises, rule No. 12 of the Manual is hereby declared to mean that the vice-president is the executive officer of the board, and shall at all times, when the board is not in session, have the entire management and control of the department, subject always to the approval of the board; and, further, that the chief of police shall, between the meetings of the board, receive and obey the orders of the vice-president only.'

“That rule 12 of the Manual, above referred to, is as follows:

“'Rule 12. The acting president of the board shall have a general supervision, and it shall be the duty of the chief of police and commanders of districts to keep him well informed on all police matters.'

“That the above preamble and resolution were adopted by the votes of the four defendants herein, against the protest and vote of the plaintiff, and that the said defendants are now enforcing the same; that the said preamble and resolution are invalid and illegal, and of no force and effect, because the same are in violation of and inconsistent with the acts of the legislature above referred to, constituting and governing said board; and that the effect of the same, and the enforcement thereof, is to strip the plaintiff, as mayor of St. Louis, of the power and authority conferred on him by the acts of the legislature aforesaid, and to deprive the people of St. Louis of the control they are authorized by their mayor to exercise, under the laws aforesaid, over the operations of said board, and the management of the police force in said city. The plaintiff prays that the defendants, and each of them, may, by the order of the court, be restrained and enjoined from further enforcing said preamble and resolution; and that the same may, by the judgment of this court, be declared void, invalid, and of no force and effect; and for such other and further relief as he is entitled to.”

The petition was duly verified, and the circuit court made an order on the defendants therein named to show cause on May 8, 1886, why the injunction should not be granted. On the day named the defendants made return to the rule as follows: “Now come the defendants in the above-entitled cause, James L. Blair, W. H. Lee, Frank Galennie, by attorney, and O. P. Gooding, in propria persona, and for a return to the rule heretofore issued by this court requiring them to show cause why an injunction should not issue against them from this court say: First, that the petition praying for such injunction does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that it affirmatively appears upon the face of said petition that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief therein asked; third, that it appears upon the face of the petition that defendants had legal right to pass the preamble and resolution set forth in said petition, and to enforce the same; fourth, that there is no equity in said petition; fifth, that it appears upon the face of the petition that plaintiff has a remedy at law. Wherefore these defendants pray that the restraining order heretofore issued against them may be canceled, and that the said rule upon them to show cause may be discharged, and that they be...