Lefman v. Schuler

• Decision Date: 27 June 1927
• Docket Number: 27139
• Parties: Melvin C. Lefman, Jailer of City of St. Louis, v. Anton Schuler, Sheriff of City of St. Louis, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

296 S.W. 808

317 Mo. 671

Melvin C. Lefman, Jailer of City of St. Louis, v. Anton Schuler, Sheriff of City of St. Louis, Appellant

No. 27139

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 27, 1927

Rehearing Granted, Reported at 317 Mo. 671 at 685.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Henry A Rosskopf, Judge.

Affirmed.

Ernest A. Green and Oliver T. Remmers for appellant.

(1) The jail is maintained, not by virtue of a municipal function of the city, but in the performance of a county function. Babcock v. Hahn, 175 Mo. 136; State ex rel. v Bus, 135 Mo. 337; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53. (2) The sheriff is jailer ex officio and has a common-law right to the custody and control of the common jail and the prisoners confined therein. And statutes in derogation of the common law are to be so construed as not to infringe upon the principles of the common law. Beach v. John Finn, 4 Mo.App. 347; 32 Cyc. 320; 35 Cyc. 1533; 21 R. C. L. 1172; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380; Boylan v. Steamboat Victory, 40 Mo. 245, 253; Thompson v. Union, 77 Mo. 520; Jackson v. Ry. Co., 87 Mo. 422; 28 Cyc. 535. (3) The office of sheriff is a constitutional one. And the Constitution only permits large cities to frame their own charters, consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the State. Sec. 10, Art. IX, Mo. Constitution; State ex rel. v. Finn, 4 Mo.App. 347; Secs. 16, 23, 25, Art. IX, Mo. Constitution. (4) The general laws of the State provide that the sheriff shall have the custody, rule, keeping and charge of the jail within his county. Secs. 12549, 12551, 12552, 12566, 12567, 12573, R. S. 1919. (5) The Constitution of 1875, when it went into effect, repealed all laws and ordinances inconsistent therewith. State ex rel. Kreiter v. Straat, 41 Mo. 58; Deal v. Mississippi Co., 107 Mo. 464; French v. Woodward, 58 Mo. 66; Mayor v. Trigg, 46 Mo. 288; Kern v. Legion of Honor, 167 Mo. 471; Blodgett v. Schafer, 94 Mo. 672; St. Jos. & I. Ry. v. Cudmore, 103 Mo. 636; K. C. Ft. S. & M. Ry. v. Thornton, 152 Mo. 570. (6) A statute should be construed so as to render another statute meaningless only where the Legislature clearly expressed such intention, and statutes seemingly in conflict should be harmonized if possible. Columbia National Bank v. Davis, 284 S.W. 464. (7) There must be uniformity in the operation of laws. Art. IX, sec. 12, Constitution of Missouri; State ex rel. v. Bailey, 272 S.W. 921. (8) Local and special laws are prohibited. Sec. 53, Art. IV, Constitution of Missouri; Henderson v. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356; Missouri Poultry & Game Co. v. Nolte, 203 S.W. 956; Barker v. Koeln, 192 S.W. 748; United Rys. v. Public Serv. Com., 192 S.W. 958; Kansas City v. Field, 194 S.W. 39. (9) Any special legislative act, any charter or ordinance attempting to give a municipal officer or employe the custody, rule or keeping of the common jail is in violation of: Secs. 10, 16, 23, 25, Art. IX, and Sec. 53, Art. IV, and Sec. 12, Art. XII, Mo. Constitution.

Julius T. Muench and Charles J. Dolan for respondent.

(1) In 1841 the Eleventh General Assembly conferred upon the county court of St. Louis County authority to appoint the jailer of St. Louis County. The effect of this act was to deprive the sheriff of St. Louis County of the custody and control of the jail of that county. Laws 1841, pp. 302, 303. (2) The power taken from the sheriff by the Act of 1841 has not been restored to him by any act of the General Assembly, or by any provision of the Scheme of Separation between the city and the County of St. Louis. (3) When the city was separated from the County of St. Louis in 1876, under authority of the Constitution, the city of St. Louis thereupon became a county and the municipal officers of the city became charged with the performance of county functions in addition to the performance of municipal functions. The power conferred upon the county court by statute to appoint a jailer of the county jail was transferred to the mayor of the city of St. Louis, who became a county officer by virtue of the separation of the city from the county, and the general custody and control of the jail were vested in the municipal assembly. Mo. Constitution, art. 9, secs. 20 to 25; Scheme of Separation, secs. 10, 24; Charter of 1876, art. 4, secs. 2, 9; State ex rel. Beach v. Mason, 4 Mo.App. 379. (4) The ordinance of the city, under authority of which respondent has been appointed to the position of jailer of the city, is a valid ordinance, passed in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Separation. Charter of 1914, art. 13, sec. 14 (d); Scheme of Separation, secs. 10, 24; Revised Code 1914, secs. 1933-1940. (5) The special laws providing for the appointment of the jailer of St. Louis County were constitutional and valid. State ex rel. Robbins v. County Court of New Madrid, 51 Mo. 82. (6) The provisions of the Scheme of Separation took the place of and superseded all special laws relating to St. Louis County inconsistent with the said Scheme. Constitution of Missouri, art. 9, sec. 20.

In Banc.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

This cause came here upon appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. After careful consideration, we have adopted as the opinion of this court the able and conclusive opinion written by the trial judge, Honorable Henry A. Rosskopf. We quote said opinion in full. To avoid confusion, we have dispensed with the customary quotation and intraquotation marks, except as employed by Judge Rosskopf. His opinion follows:

This is an action by the plaintiff against the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis, praying that the defendant and all persons working under, for, through and at his direction, in any capacity whatsoever, be permanently restrained from invading, or undertaking to invade, the jail of the city of St. Louis, with intent forcibly to expel plaintiff or his subordinates from said jail, and from interfering with plaintiff in the discharge of his duties as jailer in said city.

The defendant has filed his return to the order to show cause and answer to plaintiff's second amended position. To this return and answer plaintiff has filed a general demurrer.

The question to be determined in the last analysis is whether the common jail of the city of St. Louis should be in charge and control of the jailer of the city of St. Louis or the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis.

This cause was submitted on the pleadings and on its merits, so that a final judgment might be entered.

The plaintiff claims that the Board of Aldermen has entire control and superintendence of the jail and its management, with power to provide for the appointment of a jailer, by virtue of the Scheme of Separation adopted in 1876, under authority conferred by certain provisions of the Constitution of Missouri of 1875, certain ordinances passed by the Municipal Assembly of the City of St. Louis after the approval of the Scheme of Separation and Charter, and certain legislative enactments passed by the General Assembly of Missouri in 1877 and 1879. The defendant, on the other hand, claims the same right as sheriff, and bases his contention on certain provisions of the general laws of Missouri, and that the special laws vesting this power in the Municipal Assembly are in conflict with the Constitution of 1875, and therefore invalid.

In order to get a comprehensive view of the situation existing at the time the Scheme of Separation was adopted in 1876 it might be well to cite briefly the several theretofore existing laws touching upon the control of the jail, at that time the common jail of the County of St. Louis, which included the city of St. Louis.

The first law affecting the rights of the sheriff in so far as depriving him of the control of the common jail is concerned, was passed by the Eleventh General Assembly in 1841 (See Laws 1841, pp. 302 and 303), wherein the Legislature provided for the appointment of a jailer of the County of St. Louis, the effect thereof being to deprive the sheriff of that charge and control theretofore vested in him. This law of 1841 continued in force and effect until the year 1851, when the General Assembly of Missouri passed another law respecting said jailer of St. Louis County (See Laws 1851, p. 307), wherein it was provided that the jailer of the County of St. Louis be elected by the qualified voters of said county at each general election. The said law of 1851 continued in force and effect until 1866, at which time the General Assembly provided that the County Court of St. Louis County shall have entire control and superintendence of the county jail, and its management, and shall prescribe all needful and proper rules and regulations for the government and management thereof and treatment of the prisoners therein confined, not inconsistent with the provisions of the general laws of Missouri concerning jails and jailers, and providing for the appointment of a jailer for said jail by the county court. [Laws Adj. Sess. 1865-66, 23rd General Assembly, pp. 276-278, approved February 27, 1866.] Upon the expiration of the term of office of the then jailer the county court appointed his successor, in accordance with said law, and thereafter, until the 22nd day of October, 1876, said jailer of the County of St. Louis was appointed at regular and proper intervals by said county court.

Said law of 1866, if valid, was still in force and effect in 1876, when the Scheme of Separation of the city of St. Louis from the County of St. Louis was ratified by the voters of said city and county, and the Charter of 1876 of said city was ratified.

It thus appears that for a period of thirty-five years preceding the separation of St. Louis City from St. Louis County the sheriff of said county had no control or superintendence over the county...