Kayser v. Trs. of Bremen
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | SCOTT |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 88 |
| Parties | KAYSER, Respondent, v. TRUSTEES OF BREMEN, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
16 Mo. 88
KAYSER, Respondent,
v.
TRUSTEES OF BREMEN, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
March Term, 1852.
1. Under the act concerning “towns” (R. S. 1845), when the County Court, under a state of facts which gave it jurisdiction over the subject matter, has declared a town incorporated, the validity of its charter can only be contested by a proceeding in quo warranto.
2. That act is not unconstitutional. The duties imposed on the County Court are judicial and not legislative in their nature.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts.
J. R. Strother, for appellants, contended that the general law of 1845, authorizing the County Courts to declare towns incorporated, is constitutional, because the duties of the County Court under it are only judicial.
The law of 1845 was originally enacted in 1808. Under that law, St. Louis, Carondelet, St. Charles, Ste. Genevieve, New Madrid, and many other towns in the state, were incorporated, and no one ever thought of questioning the validity of these charters.
The County Court having jurisdiction of the case, the validity of the charter cannot be taken advantage of in a collateral proceeding of this kind.
[16 Mo. 89]
If the charter was obtained by fraud, a writ of quo warranto was the proper remedy.
Leslie & Barret, for same, contended that the Legislature had the constitutional right to make the law which confers on the County Courts the power to incorporate towns. No legislative power is delegated by that law. It only provides a way of incorporation, and defines the powers of a town thus incorporated; so that the powers are direct from the lawmaking branch of the government, and are not derived from the County Court.
If the corporation is without legal existence, it must be dissolved by quo warranto. Bear Camp River Co. v. Woodman, 2 Greenl. Rep. 404; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. 371; Hall, 198; Hughes v. Bank of Somerset, 5 Litt. 47; 16 S. & R. 140.
F. M. Haight, for respondent.
1. The County Court had no jurisdiction to incorporate the defendants. 1 Peters; 3 Hill.
2. The jurisdiction depends upon the construction of the act. Rev. Code 1845, p. 1048. This act gave no authority to create corporations ad libitum. In this case there was no town. There was a suburb of St. Louis.
3. The law of 1845 is unconstitutional and void. 1 Yerg. 452...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. Hostetter, 33775.
...874-875; State ex rel. v. Bailey, 118 N.W. 676, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 775; Burt v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18 N.W. 285; Kayser v. Bremen, 16 Mo. 88; State ex rel. Read v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17; St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 303; Franklin, etc., Institution v. Board......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 38046
...District can only be inquired into in a quo warranto proceeding at the instance of the State of Missouri. Kayser v. Trustees of Bremen, 16 Mo. 88; School District No. 35 v. Hodgins, 180 Mo. 70, 79 S.W. 148; Flynn v. City of Neosho, 114 Mo. 573, 21 S.W. 903; Pierce v. Lutesville, 25 Mo.App. ......
-
State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. Hostetter
...874-875; State ex rel. v. Bailey, 118 N.W. 676, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 775; Burt v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18 N.W. 285; Kayser v. Bremen, 16 Mo. 88; State ex rel. Read v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17; St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 303; Franklin, etc., Institution v. Bo......
-
Boatmen's Bank v. Gillespie
...1313, R. S. 1899; Thompson on Corp., secs. 2991, 7709; Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 15; Webb v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 57; Kayser v. Bremen, 16 Mo. 88; Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356; Ryland v. Hollinger, 117 F. 216; Wells Co. v. Gastonia Co., 198 U.S. 177; Rice v. Bank, 126 ......