Schubach v. McDonald
Decision Date | 23 December 1903 |
Citation | 179 Mo. 163,78 S.W. 1020 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | SCHUBACH v. McDONALD, Judge, et al. HIRT v. KINEALY, Judge, et al. LEONARD v. FISHER, Judge, et al. SCHUBACH v. HOUGH, Judge, et al. STEINER v. WOOD, Judge, et al. WASSERMAN & CO. et al. v. HOUGH, Judge, et al. |
In Banc. Separate applications for writs of prohibition by Herman Schubach, George L. Hirt, Charles J. Leonard, Max Schubach, Simon Steiner, and Wasserman & Co. and others against Jesse A. McDonald and others judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and the Chicago & Alton Railway Company and others. On rule to show cause. Rule discharged.
Judson & Green and Henry W. Bond, for plaintiffs. Johnson & Richards, Chas. C. Allen, Geo. P. B. Jackson, and E. S. Robert, for defendants.
These are original proceedings against the defendant judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to prohibit them from further entertaining jurisdiction in certain injunction suits, pending before them in said court, wherein the railroads that are joined as defendants are the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs herein are the defendants. A preliminary rule was issued by one of the judges of this court, the defendants made return thereto, and the plaintiffs moved for judgment upon the pleadings.
The controversy is this: The defendant railroads have systems extending over a large portion of the United States, and have termini in St. Louis. The plaintiffs herein are ticket brokers engaged in business in St. Louis. The railroads, each for themselves, instituted about 50 suits in the circuit court of St. Louis asking injunctions against the plaintiffs herein and other ticket brokers in that city. The petitions are practically alike. The substance of the averments of the petition is fairly stated by one of the counsel for the defendants to be as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby v. Union P. Ry. Co.
...600, 36 N.E. 948, 24 L.R.A. 152, 41 Am.St.Rep. 329; Drummond v. Southern P. R. Co., supra; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Beekman, supra; Schubach v. McDonald, supra; Nashville, C. St. L. R. Co. v. McConnell, supra; and 4 Elliott on Railroads, § 1593. 4. That the business of a person or corporation......
-
State v. Stobie
...approvingly. The law upon this subject is nowhere better or more clearly stated than in the case of Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163, 78 S. W. 1020, 65 L. R. A. 136, 101 Am. St. Rep. 452. Marshall, J., in discussing the question of jurisdiction involved in that proceeding, after an exhaust......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
...Leake v. Harris, 334 Mo. 713, 67 S.W. (2d) 981; State ex rel. Union Depot Ry. Co. v. Valliant, 100 Mo. 61, 13 S.W. 398; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182, 78 S.W. 1020; State ex rel. Term. Railroad Assn. v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 121, 140 S.W. 888; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.......
-
Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee, 52931
...effect of preserving the status quo and operate to restrain the commission or continuance of an act. Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163, 78 S.W. 1020, 65 L.R.A. 136, 101 Am.St.Rep. 452, writ of error dismissed in Schubach v. Hough, 196 U.S. 644, 25 S.Ct. 797, 49 L.Ed. 632. Apparently this wa......