State ex rel. Bennett v. Becker
| Decision Date | 16 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 33210.,33210. |
| Citation | 76 S.W.2d 363 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of R.T. BENNETT ET AL., Relators, v. WILLIAM DEE BECKER ET AL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
(1) On certiorari against the Court of Appeals the Supreme Court will determine whether the opinion of the Court of Appeals (a) runs counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court on the general principles of law announced, or (b) announces a ruling contrary to that of the Supreme Court under a like or similar set of facts or where the facts are analogous. State ex rel. v. Haid, 18 S.W. (2d) 480; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 287 Mo. 174; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 289 Mo. 515; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 250 S.W. 387; State ex rel. v. Smith, 43 S.W. (2d) 1057. The purpose of certiorari against the Court of Appeals is to secure harmony of opinions and, if the opinion of respondents is not in harmony with those of the Supreme Court, it should be quashed. State ex rel. v. Haid, 18 S.W. (2d) 480; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 300 Mo. 101. (2) The Supreme Court should assume the opinion of the Court of Appeals correctly states the nature of the case and will not go beyond the opinion to ascertain the facts. State ex rel. v. Smith, 43 S.W. (2d) 1057; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 273 Mo. 218, 200 S.W. 1045; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 278 Mo. 649, 213 S.W. 460; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 20 S.W. (2d) 51; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 39 S.W. (2d) 373; State ex rel. v. Haid, 37 S.W. (2d) 438. (3) When the Supreme Court once acquires jurisdiction by reason of an alleged conflict, it should consider all suggested conflicts or conflicts not suggested but within the personal knowledge of the court, the purpose of certiorari being to secure uniformity of opinions and harmony in the law. State ex rel. v. Ellison, 273 Mo. 228, 200 S.W. 1042; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 253 S.W. 1016; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 300 S.W. 813; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 300 Mo. 101. (4) To recover a reward there must be a substantial compliance with all of the conditions of the offer of reward. Furnishing information which leads to the arrest and delivery of fugitives is not a compliance with the terms and conditions of an offer of reward for the arrest and delivery of fugitives, and before a reward can be recovered for the arrest and delivery of fugitives there must be a substantial compliance with all of the conditions of the offer of reward. Smith v. Vernon County, 188 Mo. 508; Cummings v. Clinton County, 181 Mo. 172; Lovejoy v. Railroad Co., 53 Mo. App. 391.
Creech & Creech for respondent.
(1) It was peculiarly in the province of the St. Louis Court of Appeals to apply the law of the case to the facts in the case. State ex rel. Hauck Bakery Co. v. Haid, 62 S.W. (2d) 402; State ex rel. Vesper-Buick Automobile Co. v. Daues, 323 Mo. 388, 19 S.W. (2d) 700; State ex rel. N.W. Natl. Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 323 Mo. 458, 20 S.W. (2d) 46; State ex rel. Am. Packing Co. v. Reynolds, 287 Mo. 697, 230 S.W. 642. (2) It is not the province of the Supreme Court to determine, on certiorari, whether or not the St. Louis Court of Appeals has erred in its application of rules of law to facts stated in its opinion. State ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 290 Mo. 362, 235 S.W. 88; State ex rel. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 303 Mo. 608, 262 S.W. 43. (3) The authority of the Supreme Court to supervise the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a court of appeals is limited to those cases wherein it clearly appears that a court of appeals has announced some general principle of law contrary to the last previous announcement of this court upon the subject, or, on a given state of facts, such court of appeals has announced and applied a conclusion of law or equity contrary to a conclusion announced and applied by this court upon the same or a similar state of facts. State ex rel. Hauck Bakery Co. v. Haid, 62 S.W. (2d) 402; State ex rel. Vesper-Buick Automobile Co. v. Daues, 323 Mo. 388, 19 S.W. (2d) 700.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari in this court asking this court to review and quash the proceedings of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of R.T. Bennett et al respondents, v. Joseph A. Gerk, Chief of Police of St. Louis et al., appellants, reported in 61 S.W. (2d) 241, as being in conflict with certain controlling decisions of this court. The relators here, Bennett, McGregor, and Groshong, the latter being Sheriff of Lincoln County, Missouri, and the other two his deputies, brought suit in the Lincoln County Circuit Court against Joseph A. Gerk, chief of police of the city of St. Louis, to recover a reward of $2000 offered by said Gerk for "the arrest and delivery to police officers of the City of St. Louis, Mo., of Charles Heuer and Edward Barcume, wanted for kidnaping." The plaintiffs in that action, the sheriff and his deputies, claimed to have complied with the terms of the offered reward and to be entitled to same. The defendant Gerk, evidently by previous agreement, waived service of summons and entered his appearance in Lincoln County and filed therein his bill of interpleader admitting the offer of the reward and that Charles Heuer and Edward Barcume had been arrested and delivered to the police officers of St. Louis by the plaintiff sheriff and his deputies, but stating that other persons, naming them, were making claims for the reward. The defendant Gerk, therefore, asked the court to be allowed to pay the amount of the reward, $2000, into court, that the court order and require all claimants to the fund to interplead and assert their respective claims, and that he be discharged. This request, on due hearing and without objection, was granted and the order made. In addition to the plaintiffs, Bennett, McGregor, and Groshong, the sheriff and his deputies, who made the actual arrest and delivery of the persons named in the offer of reward, the following persons entered their appearance as interpleaders and by their respective interpleas claimed the reward, all of them living at Hawk Point, in Lincoln County, where the arrest was made, to-wit: E.D. Hamilton, station agent, and R.H. Brown, cashier of the local bank, who filed a joint claim; William F. Nicklin, Thomas B. Hammond, local constable, Florence Cregger, and Ralph C. Cannon. These last two made at most a feeble claim which on the hearing was rejected, their interpleas dismissed, and they dropped out of the case. On the proofs made the trial court awarded $200 to interpleader Thomas B. Hammond, the local constable, for services in connection with the arrest, and a like amount to interpleaders R.H. Brown, local bank cashier, and E.D. Hamilton, station agent at Hawk Point, jointly; to interpleader William Nicklin the sum of $200, and to the plaintiffs, Sheriff Groshong and his deputies, Bennett and McGregor, the balance of the fund after payment of the costs. From this decree the interpleaders Nicklin, Brown, and Hamilton appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with directions to the trial court to enter judgment for interpleader Nicklin for the entire reward, which necessarily includes a judgment that the other interpleaders, including the relators here, take nothing by their interpleas. It is that opinion of the Court of Appeals, Bennett v. Gerk, 61 S.W. (2d) 241, that this court is asked to quash as being in conflict with certain opinions of this court to be noted hereafter.
The opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals thus attacked is quite lengthy and sets out the facts and court's rulings thereon at length and we need not copy the same. It will suffice to say here that the court sets out the evidence adduced in behalf of each interpleader, from which it appears that the reward in question was offered for the arrest and delivery to police officers of St. Louis of the named persons, Heuer and Barcume, for the kidnaping of Alexander Berg in St. Louis on November 6, 1931. The reward was offered November 16, 1931, and was published in the St. Louis papers with pictures of the persons wanted and notices were sent out to sheriffs and like officers. On November 18, 1931, a bank at Winfield, in Lincoln County, was robbed and it was suspected that the kidnapers of Berg were connected with such bank robbery. Heuer and Barcume were arrested at Hawk Point, in Lincoln County, in the forenoon of November 19, 1931, and the part which the station agent, Hamilton, and the cashier of the local bank, Brown, took in the arrest was that they observed the suspicious acts and appearances of these two men and a companion at Hawk Point that morning and after conferring with each other and with interpleader Nicklin the latter notified the local constable, Hammond, who in turn notified the sheriff's office, with the result that the two deputy sheriffs, Bennett and McGregor, went to Hawk Point and made the arrest. The suspicions and belief of these parties that these two men were the kidnapers wanted in St. Louis and that they were also connected with the local bank robbery the day previous proved to be correct.
The Court of Appeals held that while interpleaders Brown and Hamilton furnished some information which aided in bringing about the arrest of Heuer and Barcume, they did not comply with the terms of the offered reward in arresting them and were not entitled to any part of such reward. As they have not joined in the present action in certiorari and are not here objecting to the Court of Appeals' opinion and judgment, we need not inquire further as to the correctness of that court's action as to them.
[1] The Court of Appeals disposed of the interplea claim of Sheriff Groshong and his deputies, Bennett and McGregor, relators here, and of the claim of Constable Hammond adversely to them on the same grounds, to-wit, that being public officers and...
To continue reading
Request your trial