Missouri Electric Power Co. v. City of Mountain Grove

• Decision Date: 03 January 1944
• Docket Number: 38630
• Parties: Missouri Electric Power Company, a Corporation, and S. M. Hoffman, Appellants, v. City of Mountain Grove, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, C. H. Duvall, Mayor, Daly Andrews, Charles E. Hampton, C. C. Leascher, Fred E. Morton, T. W. Noland, J. F. Perry, B. F. Richardson, and Joe A. Walker, Aldermen, Jewell Newton, City Clerk, Leonard E. Newton, Viola Duvall, James Smith, Tod Lower, Cleo Sherrell, Pearl Andrews, Clifford Jackson, S. C. (Dutch) Young, Phoeba Reeves, Emma Jean Barber, Ed Belcher, Hazel Atnip, Ruth Sherrell Prater, and Wilma Sullivan
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

176 S.W.2d 612

352 Mo. 262

Missouri Electric Power Company, a Corporation, and S. M. Hoffman, Appellants, v. City of Mountain Grove, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, C. H. Duvall, Mayor, Daly Andrews, Charles E. Hampton, C. C. Leascher, Fred E. Morton, T. W. Noland, J. F. Perry, B. F. Richardson, and Joe A. Walker, Aldermen, Jewell Newton, City Clerk, Leonard E. Newton, Viola Duvall, James Smith, Tod Lower, Cleo Sherrell, Pearl Andrews, Clifford Jackson, S. C. (Dutch) Young, Phoeba Reeves, Emma Jean Barber, Ed Belcher, Hazel Atnip, Ruth Sherrell Prater, and Wilma Sullivan

No. 38630

Supreme Court of Missouri

January 3, 1944

Appeal from Wright Circuit Court; Hon. Sam C. Blair Special Judge.

Affirmed.

Stone & Stone for appellants.

(1) Since Circuit Court of Wright County, Missouri, was not in session on August 24, 1942, and judge thereof was not in Wright County on that day, County Court of Wright County had authority to issue temporary injunction in this case; and Sections 1661, 1662 and 1663, R.S. 1939, under which said injunction was granted, are constitutional. State ex rel v. Locker, 266 Mo. 384, 181 S.W. 1001; State ex rel. v. McElroy, 309 Mo. 595, 274 S.W. 749; State ex rel. v. Corneli, 347 Mo. 1164, 152 S.W.2d 83; Rinehart v. Howell County, 348 Mo. 421, 153 S.W.2d 381. (2) Court will indulge every rational and reasonable presumption in favor of validity of said statutes, and they will not be declared unconstitutional unless their repugnancy to Constitution is made to appear clearly, plainly and beyond a reasonable doubt. 11 Am. Jur. 780, sec. 128; Greene County v. Lydy, 263 Mo. 77, 172 S.W. 376; In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 298 Mo. 569, 252 S.W. 404; Forgrave v. Buchanan County, 282 Mo. 599, 222 S.W. 755; Phillips v. Mo. Pacific Ry. Co., 86 Mo. 540. (3) In constitutional construction, language must be given its plain, natural and usual import, and construction will not be adopted which renders any provision meaningless. 11 Am. Jur. 680, sec. 65; State ex rel. v. Hitchcock, 241 Mo. 433, 146 S.W. 40; Saleno v. City of Neosho, 127 Mo. 627, 30 S.W. 190; State ex rel. v. O'Rear, 277 Mo. 303, 210 S.W. 392; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636, 39 S.W. 270. (4) In determining constitutionality of statutes, great weight will be given to contemporaneous legislative interpretation; and, Missouri Legislature has left no doubt concerning validity of said statutes. State ex rel. v. Riedel, 329 Mo. 616, 46 S.W.2d 131; State v. Adkins, 284 Mo. 680, 225 S.W. 981. (5) County courts exercise many judicial functions pursuant to legislative grant under Section 36, Article 6, of Missouri Constitution. Secs. 1, 36, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution. County courts may adjudge insanity. Secs. 9335-9340, R.S. 1939; Ussery v. Haynes, 344 Mo. 530, 127 S.W.2d 410; Thomas v. Macon County, 175 Mo. 68, 74 S.W. 999; Painter v. Painter, 206 Mo.App. 312, 228 S.W. 538. (6) County courts may grant writs of habeas corpus. Secs. 1591, 1593, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. v. Locker, supra. (7) County courts may make order of sale having effect of a fieri facias on judgment of foreclosure by circuit court. Sec. 10387, R.S. 1939; Benton County v. Morgan, 163 Mo. 661, 64 S.W. 119. (8) County courts may decide constitutional questions. Hollowell v. Schuyler County, 322 Mo. 1230, 18 S.W.2d 498. (9) County courts have had jurisdiction to determine certain election contests. Sec. 2143, R.S. 1929, repealed Laws of 1939, p. 334; Ramsey v. Huck, 267 Mo. 333, 184 S.W. 966. (10) County courts may vacate streets and alleys. Secs. 7316, 7317, R.S. 1939; Bingham v. Kollman, 256 Mo. 573, 165 S.W. 1097. (11) County courts may condemn for drainage districts and pass upon exceptions to commissioners' award of benefits and damages. Art. 3, Chap. 79, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 393, 123 S.W. 892; State ex rel. v. Penman, 220 Mo.App. 193, 282 S.W. 498; Drainage Dist. No. 19 v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 198 F. 253. Under Section 22 of Article 6 of Constitution, Legislature can grant exclusive or concurrent original jurisdiction to county courts or other inferior tribunals; and, such grant is not in violation of Section 23 of Article 6 giving county courts superintending control over inferior tribunals. Such exclusive or concurrent original jurisdiction has been granted to Justices of the Peace with respect to many matters. Sec. 37, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution. (12) Justices of the Peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of suits for less than $ 50. Secs. 2100, 2552, R.S. 1939; Pike v. Farmers Mutual, etc., 215 Mo.App. 303, 251 S.W. 115. (13) Justices of the Peace have concurrent original jurisdiction of suits for more than $ 50 but within their maximum jurisdiction. Secs. 2100, 2552, 2553, R.S. 1939; Robinson v. Levy, 217 Mo. 498, 117 S.W. 577. (14) Justices of the Peace have concurrent original jurisdiction of all actions against railroad companies for killing or injuring animals, without regard to value. Secs. 2100, 2552, 2553, R.S. 1939; Phillips v. Mo. Pacific Ry. Co., supra. (15) Justices of the Peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions for unlawful detainer. Art. 2, Chap. 12, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. v. Brown, 228 Mo.App. 760, 72 S.W.2d 859; Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 278 Mo. 450, 214 S.W. 92. (16) Justices of the Peace have concurrent original jurisdiction in all misdemeanor cases. Sec. 3804, R.S. 1939. (17) Justices of the Peace conduct preliminary examinations in criminal cases. Art. 5, Chap. 30, R.S. 1939. (18) In granting preliminary injunctions under Sections 1661, 1662 and 1663, R.S. 1939, county courts act for the circuit courts. Sec. 29, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution; Johnson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 259 Mo. 534, 168 S.W. 713; State v. Catalino, 316 Mo. 1152, 295 S.W. 568; Dobbins Bros. v. Anderson, 135 S.W.2d 325; Thompson v. Dillingham, 193 N.C. 566, 112 S.E. 321.

E. C. Lockwood, Leonard E. Newton and Wm. L. Vandeventer for respondents.

(1) The statutes authorizing the county court to exercise equitable jurisdiction by issuing a temporary restraining order (Secs. 1662-3, R.S. 1939), are violative of Sections 22, 23 and 36 of Art. 6 of the Missouri Constitution, hence the restraining order was void. Sec. XXIII, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution 1865; Secs. 1 & 12, Art. 5, Mo. Constitution 1820; Secs. 1, 22, 23, 36 & 37, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution 1875; State ex rel. v. Stewart, 240 S.W. 824; State ex rel. v. Kirby, 136 S.W.2d 319, 345 Mo. 801; Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1875, Vol. 7, pp. 150, 151, 162, 164, 174, 182, 191, 355, 246 247; Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1875, Vol. 8, pp. 238, 246, 257; Bash v. Truman, 75 S.W.2d 840, 325 Mo. 1077; Marsh v. Bartlett, 121 S.W.2d 737, 343 Mo. 526; State ex rel. v. Harlman, 96 S.W.2d 329, 339 Mo. 20; United States v. Chambers, 54 S.Ct. 434, 291 U.S. 217, 78 L.Ed. 763; Workman v. Turner, 283 S.W. 61. (2) If, as a matter of law, the judgment of the circuit court, on the whole record, was right, then, in conformity to the provisions of Section 1228, R.S. 1939, the judgment will be affirmed, notwithstanding the trial court may have based its judgment on erroneous grounds. Balderson v. Monaghan, 278 S.W. 783; Wolf v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 269 S.W. 701; Vette v. Hackman, 237 S.W. 802; State ex rel. v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 466; State ex rel. v. Dawson, 284 Mo. 427. (3) The circuit court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of a city election; hence, its temporary restraining order in this case was in excess of its jurisdiction and void, and there could be no contempt for its violation. Mo. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 9; Mo. Constitution, Art. III; 21 C.J., p. 156, sec. 137; Albright v. Bishop, 164 Mo. 56; State ex rel. v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408; State ex rel. v. Burch, 186 Mo. 205; State ex rel. v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 546; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo.App. 463; Green v. Owen, 38 S.W.2d 496; Hann v. Fitzgerald, 119 S.W.2d 808; Rhodes v. Bell, 230 Mo. 138; State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 425; State ex rel. v. Westhues, 290 S.W. 443; Ex parte Irwin, 6 S.W.2d 597; Russell v. Lill, 12 S.W.2d 508; State ex rel. v. Gates, 190 Mo. l.c. 555; Kansas City v. Hyde, 196 Mo. l.c. 506; Jacks v. Merrill, 201 Mo. l.c. 104; State ex rel. v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601; State ex rel. v. Stone, 120 Mo. 428; State ex rel. v. Shields, 272 Mo. 342; State ex inf. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. l.c. 54; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo. 463; State ex rel. v. Speer, 284 Mo. 48; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 295 Mo. 417; State ex rel. Dawson v. Caster, 12 S.W.2d 462; State ex rel. v. Kansas City, 276 S.W. 389; State ex rel. v. People's Ice Co., 246 Mo. l.c. 522; Troll v. St. Louis, 257 Mo. l.c. 656; Ex parte LeMond, 295 Mo. 586. (4) Having procured a restraining order by methods which amount to legal fraud, plaintiffs now ask the court to wink at that fraud and punish defendants for violation of the order so procured. Under such circumstances a court of equity should say to them: You come into court with unclean hands, therefore we will not aid you, but we wash our hands of you and leave you where we found you. State ex rel. v. Steers, 44 Mo. 223; Creamer v. Bivert, 214 Mo. 473.

Van Osdol, C. Bradley and Dalton, CC., concur.

OPINION

VAN OSDOL

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion to quash a citation for contempt. The citation was issued the result of a violation of a temporary injunction granted by two judges of the County Court of Wright County whereby the city and city officials of Mountain Grove, and designated judges and clerks of election, were restrained from holding an election called for the purpose of submitting to the legal voters of the city the proposition to issue bonds for the purchase or construction of an electric light plant. Respondents assert the statutes authorizing the granting of a temporary injunction by a county cou...