Kellogg v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 08 September 1942
• Docket Number: 37668
• Parties: Clara E. Kellogg et al., Appellants, v. Andrew J. Murphy, Sr., et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

164 S.W.2d 285

349 Mo. 1165

Clara E. Kellogg et al., Appellants, v. Andrew J. Murphy, Sr., et al

No. 37668

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 8, 1942

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.

Affirmed.

Clif Langsdale, John M. Langsdale and Clyde Taylor for appellants.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in this case rather than the Court of Appeals. Sec. 12, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution; Murphy v. Hurlbut, 142 S.W.2d 449; Murphy v Doniphan Tel. Co., 147 S.W.2d 616. There is no bill of exceptions, nor is there a motion for a new trial. This is unnecessary under the particular practice applicable to this proceeding. State ex rel. v. Haid, 38 S.W.2d 52. Appellants are not employers within the Act under the provision of Sec. 9423, Subdivision (e), par. 4 Kellogg-Baxter Printing Company does not own or control Creel Publishing Company. The Publishing Company does not own or control the Printing Company. The Printing Company and the Publishing Company are not owned or controlled by the same person. The ruling of the lower court to the contrary is reversible error. As to joint ownership. 18 C. J. S., p. 368; 14 C. J., p. 52; In re Sheffield Soc., 22 Q. B. D 476; People v. Watertown, 1 Hill, 621, 25 Wend. 686; Ulmer v. Lime Co., 57 A. 1001; Fietsam v. Hay, 13 N.E. 501; State ex rel. v. Miller, 272 S.W. 1066; Knott v. Fisher Co., 190 S.W. 378; Forrest City v. Union, 111 S.W.2d 934; Jones v. Williams, 40 S.W. 353; 14 C. J. 863; Mathews v. Headley, 100 A. 645; People v. Dennett, 114 N.E. 493; In re Goetz, 85 A. 65; Brock v. Poor, 111 N.E. 229; 14 C. J. 864; Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U.S. 304; Terry v. Reciprocal Exchange, 268 S.W. 421. As to joint control. 14a C. J. 81, 82, 83; Manson v. Curtis, 119 N.E. 559; Paducah v. Robertson, 171 S.W. 171; Jones v. Williams, 39 S.W. 486; 14 C. J. 849; Jones v. Williams, 40 S.W. 353; Sec. 5346, R. S. 1939; 14a C. J. 54. The fact that both businesses have the same street address and that the Printing Company does the mechanical work of printing the Journal, for which it is paid by the Publishing Company, is no evidence of joint control. The principles announced in the case of Murphy v. Doniphan Telephone Company, 147 S.W.2d 616, are decisive of this case and require that the judgment below be reversed. A proper construction of par. 4 of Subsection (h) of Section 9423 precludes its application to the facts in this case. The opinion of the Attorney General of Missouri of October 19, 1939, on this precise question is persuasive. Independent Gasoline Co. v. Bureau, 10 S.W.2d 61; Opinion of the Attorney General of Missouri, October 19, 1939; C. C. H. Unemployment Insurance Service, Mo., sec. 8062. If the section in question means what the Commission argues it means it is unconstitutional, in that it violates Section 3 of Article 10 of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting a non-uniform, arbitrary and discriminatory tax. St. Louis v. Spiegal, 75 Mo. 145; St. Louis v. Spiegal (not the same case as in 75 Mo.), 2 S.W. 839; State v. Ashbrook, 55 S.W. 627; City of Washington v. Reed, 70 S.W.2d 121; Kansas City v. Whipple, 38 S.W. 295; Ex parte Asotsky, 5 S.W.2d 22; Brookfield v. Tooey, 43 S.W. 387; Kansas City v. Grush, 52 S.W. 286; State v. Bexman, 62 S.W. 828; State v. Bengsch, 70 S.W. 710; State v. Railroad Co., 93 S.W. 784; State v. Shipman, 234 S.W. 60; Nafziger v. Sallisbury, 48 S.W.2d 563.

George A. Rozier, Chief Counsel, and Mahlon Z. Eubank, Assistant Counsel for respondents; Harry G. Waltner, Jr., of counsel.

(1) Appellants cannot raise for the first time questions before this Court not raised before the Commission nor contained in their "Petition for Judicial Review." Secs. 1227, 9432 (i), 9432 A (b), R. S. 1939; Laws, 1941, p. 612; Denny v. Guyton, 327 Mo. 1030, 40 S.W.2d 562; Morley & M. R. Co. v. Himmelberger, 247 Mo. 179, 152 S.W. 86; Babcock v. Rieger, 332 Mo. 528, 58 S.W.2d 722; Thomas v. Scott, 221 Mo. 271, 119 S.W. 1098; Toroian v. Parkview Amusement Co., 331 Mo. 700, 56 S.W.2d 134; Hampe v. Versen, 224 Mo.App. 1144, 32 S.W.2d 793; Calhoun v. Brotherhood's Relief & Compensation Fund, 234 Mo.App. 946, 135 S.W.2d 1096; State v. Palmer, 344 Mo. 1063, 130 S.W.2d 599; Richards v. Earls, 345 Mo. 260, 133 S.W.2d 381; Merz v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 344 Mo. 1150 130 S.W.2d 611; Oliver v. Lynn Meat Co., 230 Mo.App. 1021, 93 S.W.2d 114. (2) The jurisdiction of the courts is confined to questions of law; and the finding of the Commission, if supported by competent evidence, is conclusive on this court. Section 9432 (i), R. S. 1939; A. J. Meyer & Company v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; Murphy v. Doniphan Tel. Co., 347 Mo. 372, 147 S.W.2d 616; Dempsey v. Horton, 337 Mo. 379, 84 S.W.2d 621; Gannon v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 145 Mo. 502, 46 S.W. 968, 43 L. R. A. 505; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dillard, 328 Mo. 1154, 43 S.W.2d 1034; Cook v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 51 S.W.2d 171; Pearson Elevator Co. v. M.-K.-T. Ry. Co., 336 Mo. 583, 80 S.W.2d 137; Stoll v. First Natl. Bank of Independence, 345 Mo. 582, 134 S.W.2d 97; Griffith v. Walesby, 91 S.W.2d 232. (3) The findings of fact of the Commission that both employing units are "owned and controlled by the same interests" are supported by competent and substantial evidence. Murphy v. Doniphan Tel. Co., 347 Mo. 372, 147 S.W.2d 616; Section 9423 (h) (4), R. S. 1939; Laws 1941, p. 571. (4) Both the appellants in this case are employing units within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Sec. 9423 (g), R. S. 1939; Murphy v. Hurlbut Undertaking & Embalming Co., 346 Mo. 405, 142 S.W.2d 449. (5) The appellants are an employer as defined in Section 9423 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Sec. 9423, R. S. 1939; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486; Brown v. Citizens State Bank, 345 Mo. 480, 134 S.W.2d 116; New Haven Metal & Heating Supply Co. v. Danaher, 21 A.2d 383; Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. City Ice Co., 216 N.C. 6, 3 S.E.2d 290; Gibson Products Co. v. Murphy, 186 Okla. 714, 100 P.2d 453; Maine Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. Androscoggin, 16 A.2d 252; State of Washington v. Kitsap County Bank, 117 P.2d 228; Vol. VI, Commerce Clearing House, p. 50,594, sec. 8100; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A. L. R. 1327; Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. J. M. Willis Barber & Beauty Shop and Reynolds Building Barber Shop, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E.2d 4; Milrose Co., Inc., v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 126 N. J. L. 441, 19 A.2d 892; Witherspoon Oil Co. v. State of Texas; Vol. VI, Commerce Clearing House, p. 46,558, sec. 8079; Mississippi Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. Avent, 4 So.2d 296; Vol. IV, Commerce Clearing House, p. 27,506, sec. 8045; Vol. II, Commerce Clearing House, p. 9019, sec. 1311.01; Luecht & Co. v. Durkin, Director of Labor, Vol. III, Commerce Clearing House, p. 16,022, sec. 1311.01; Brown v. Haith, Vol. IV, Commerce Clearing House, p. 30,503, sec. 8069. (6) All acts of the Legislature are presumed to be constitutional. State Board of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 75 L.Ed. 1248, 51 S.Ct. 540; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 55 L.Ed. 369, 31 S.Ct. 337; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W.2d 543; State v. Kennedy, 343 Mo. 786, 123 S.W.2d 118. (7) There is no merit in the appellants' contention that the taxes imposed by the Unemployment Compensation Law are not uniform on the same class of subjects in violation of Section 3 of Article X of the Missouri Constitution. Murphy v. Hurlbut Undertaking & Embalming Co., 346 Mo. 405, 142 S.W.2d 449; Ex Parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W.2d 22; Viquesney v. Kansas City, 305 Mo. 488, 266 S.W. 700; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 81 L.Ed. 811, 57 S.Ct. 868, 109 A. L. R. 1327; Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 174 So. 516; Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley, 198 Ark. 91, 127 S.W.2d 802; Gillum v. Johnson, 7 Cal. (2d) 744, 62 P.2d 1037; Howes Brothers Co. v. Mass. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 296 Mass. 275, 5 N.E.2d 720; Tatum v. Wheeless, 180 Miss. 800, 178 So. 95; Chamberlin v. Andrews, 27 N.Y. 1, 2 N.E.2d 22; Southern Photo & Blue Print Co. v. Gore, 114 S.W.2d 796; Globe Grain & Milling Co. v. Industrial Comm., 98 Utah 36, 91 P.2d 512; Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. J. M. Willis Barber & Beauty Shop and Reynolds Building Barber Shop, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E.2d 4; Pickelsimer v. Pratt, 17 S.E.2d 524; Vol. V, Commerce Clearing House, p. 43,532, sec. 8103; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279, 109 A. L. R. 1293; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245; State of Washington v. Kitsap County Bank, 117 P.2d 228; Vol. VI, Commerce Clearing House, p. 50,594, sec. 8100; New Haven Metal & Heating Supply Co. v. Danaher, 21 A.2d 383; Sec. 9422, R. S. 1939; Laws 1941, p. 568. (8) The Unemployment Compensation Law does not deprive persons of property without due process of law under the State and Federal Constitutions. Village of Grandview v. McElroy, 318 Mo. 135, 298 S.W. 760; Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. J. M. Willis Barber & Beauty Shop and Reynolds Building Barber Shop, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E.2d 4; Mississippi Unemployment Comp. Comm. v. Avent, 4 So.2d 296; Vol. IV, Commerce Clearing House, p. 27,506, sec. 8045. (9) The Unemployment Compensation Law does not deny citizens of the equal protection clause of Section I of Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Independent Gasoline Co. v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp. of Georgia, 10 S.E.2d 58; certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 707, 61 S.Ct. 175, 85 L.Ed. 459; Benner-Coryell Lbr. Co. v. Indiana Unemployment Comp. Comm., 29 N.E.2d 776; certiorari denied, 312 U.S. 698, 61 S.Ct. 741, 85 L.Ed. 1132; Secs. 5012, 5018, 5019, 5020, 5037, 5042, 5354, 5361, 5365, R. S. 1939; Brown v....