State ex rel. Leake v. Harris

• Citation: 67 S.W.2d 981
• Decision Date: 03 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 32730.,32730.
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of PAUL E. LEAKE, C.A. KOOP, MATHEW A. MOLITOR and PAUL E. LEAKE and C.A. KOOP, Doing Business as STERLING AND COMPANY, Relators, v. BROWN HARRIS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, and J.H. SMEDLEY, Sheriff of Jackson County.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

67 S.W.2d 981

STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of PAUL E. LEAKE, C.A. KOOP, MATHEW A. MOLITOR and PAUL E. LEAKE and C.A. KOOP, Doing Business as STERLING AND COMPANY, Relators, v. BROWN HARRIS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, and J.H. SMEDLEY, Sheriff of Jackson County.

No. 32730.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, February 3, 1934.

Prohibition.

PRELIMINARY RULE MADE ABSOLUTE.

Maurice J. O'Sullivan, and J. Francis O'Sullivan for relators; Julius C. Shapiro of counsel.

(1) Prohibition is the proper remedy to enforce supersedeas and require return of property held by a receiver, where supersedeas bond has been given. State ex rel. v. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 435, 37 S.W. 921; State ex rel. v. Klein, 137 Mo. 673, 39 S.W. 272; State ex rel. v. Duncan, 36 S.W. (2d) 679; Cuendet v. Henderson, 166 Mo. 657, 66 S.W. 1079; 3 C.J. 1328. (2) The circuit court never had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver with or without notice, where the petition showed on its face plaintiff had no interest in, claim to, or right or lien against the property of relators. The appointment; the failure to vacate the order; and continuing said receiver in charge was an abuse of and in excess of power. State ex rel. v. Mulloy, 43 S.W. (2d) 810; Nottebaum et al. v. Leckie, 31 Fed. (2d) 556. (3) The petition in the court below did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public nuisance and did not authorize either an injunction or a receivership. State ex rel. v. McMahon, 128 Kan. 772; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 518; State ex rel. v. Barron, 136 Kan. 324, 15 Pac. (2d) 456; State ex rel. v. Iola Theater Corp. 136 Kan. 411, 15 Pac. (2d) 459; 32 C.J. 275; 9 A.L.R. 925; State ex rel. v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439, 105 S.W. 1078; Laymaster v. Goodin, 260 Mo. 613, 168 S.W. 754; State ex rel. v. Kirkwood Leisure Hours' Social and Pastime Club, 187 S.W. 820; State ex rel. v. Jones, 209 S.W. 876, 277 Mo. 71; State ex rel. v. Salley, 215 S.W. 243; State ex rel. v. Iden, 221 S.W. 782; State ex rel. v. Schweickardt, 109 Mo. 496, 19 S.W. 47; State ex rel. v. Woolfolk, 269 Mo 389, 190 S.W. 877; Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City, 240 Mo. 659, 144 S.W. 1099. (4) The petition in the court below fails to state a cause of action against relators and shows on its face plaintiff is not the real party in interest and had no legal capacity to sue. (a) The petition of Kansas City does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The facts alleged affirmatively show no loan business was carried on, and there was no usury. Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 574; Salem Trust Co. v. Mfg. Finance Co., 264 U.S. 197; Struthers v. Drexel, 122 U.S. 495; Atlanta Joint Terminals v. Walton Discount Co., 29 Ga. App. 225, 114 S.E. 908; King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S.E. 1093; Spicer v. Bros., 136 Tenn. 413, 189 S.W. 865; Coast Finance Co. v. Powers, 209 Pac. 614, 24 A.L.R. 855; Redijkeit v. Andrews, 74 Ohio St. 123; Owens v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. App. 108; Jackson v. The State, 5 Ga. App. 177; Nashville Terminals v. Tennessee Finance Co., 143 Tenn. 875; State ex rel. v. Boatmen's Bank, 48 Mo. 189; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich, 262 S.W. 425, 218 Mo. App. 68; Allen v. Newton, 266 S.W. 329, 219 Mo. App. 74. (b) The city is not the real party in interest and has no legal capacity to maintain the action. R.S. 1929, Secs. 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 2842. (c) The petition of Kansas City does not state a cause of action within its charter powers. R.S. 1919, sec. 8704 (now Sec. 7289, R.S. 1929); City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 222, 147 S.W. 998; City of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 595, 84 S.W. 914; Woods v. City of Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303, 62 S.W. 433; City of St. Louis v. Klausmeier, 213 Mo. 129, 112 S.W. 516; State ex rel. v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; State ex rel. Sheffel v. McCammon, 111 Mo. App. 630, 88 S.W. 510; City of St. Louis v. Williams, 235 Mo. 508, 139 S.W. 340. (d) The ordinance upon which the city bases its attempted action, under the rule of ejusdem generis, relates only to matters of public health and does not take within its purview any matter complained of in the petition. State v. Wade, 267 Mo. 249, 183 S.W. 600; City of St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; Cecil v. Green, 161 Ill. 268, 43 N.E. 1105. (5) Relators were expressly charged with the crime of usury. The appointment of a receiver to seize their books, papers and records, and the order of the court directing the receiver to copy same constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, directly violative of relators' constitutional rights. Sec. 11, Article II, Const. of Mo.; Sec. 23, Article II, Const. of Mo.; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 S.W. 1038; State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398, 120 S.W. 53; State v. Lehman, 175 Mo. 619, 75 S.W. 139; State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96; State ex rel. v. Kearns, 304 Mo. 685, 264 S.W. 775; State v. Pearson, 270 S.W. 347; State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Davis, 108 Mo. 666, 18 S.W. 894; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L. Ed. 746; State v. Simmons Hardware Co., 109 Mo. 118, 18 S.W. 1125; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, 55 L. Ed. 663; Ex parte Brown, 72 Mo. 94; State ex rel. v. Haid, 30 S.W. (2d) 468; State ex rel. v. Woods, 316 Mo. 1032, 292 S.W. 1035; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542, 163 S.W. 860. (6) Relators were unlawfully deprived of their constitutional right of lawfully conducting their business and of remaining in possession of their property, papers and effects and were deprived of equal protection of laws and due process of law and of the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry, in violation of Sections 4, 20, 21 and 30, of Article II of the Constitution of Missouri, and of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Sec. 4, Article II, Const. of Mo.; Sec. 30, Article II, Const. of Mo.; 14th Amendment of the Const. of the United States; State ex rel. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S.W. 104; State ex rel. Wyatt v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375, 55 S.W. 632.

George Kingsley and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for respondents.

(1) The well pleaded allegations of respondents' return must be taken as true and all allegations of the petition denied by the return must be taken as false. State ex rel. v. Thompson, 316 Mo. 275; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 238 Mo. 174; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 134 Mo. 38; State ex rel. v. Linville, 318 Mo. 701. (2) As to supersedeas and return of property held by receiver. The question is moot. State ex rel. v. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 435; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 176; Sullivan v. Algrem, 150 Fed. 71; In re Cotton Mill Co., 109 La. 875; Roberts v. Letchworth, 127 Ark. 490; Tuttle v. Ins. Co., 127 Atl. 628; 53 C.J. 148, sec. 187; Ex parte Steele, 162 Fed. 701; State ex rel. v. McElhinney, 241 Mo. 605; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 55 Mo. 497; In re Railroad, 51 Mo. 586, 37 Mo. 135. (3) Upon the petition filed by Kansas City, it was not necessary for Kansas City to have any interest in, claim to, or right or lien against relators' property. See authorities cited under 4. (4) The petition filed by Kansas City stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and alleged facts sufficient to constitute a public nuisance. (a) Relators' business is illegal. Secs. 5559, 5561, R.S. 1929; Dunn v. Ohio, 75 L. Ed. 91; Dunn v. State, 122 Oh. St. 431; Palmore v. Railroad Co., 156 Md. 4; Sweat v. Com., 152 Va. 1041; Secs. 2839, 2840, 2844, 2969, 4421, 5556, R.S. 1929; Scott v. Lloyd, 34 U.S. 417; Bell v. Mulholland, 90 Mo. App. 619; Tolman v. Union C. & S. Co., 90 Mo. App. 279; Fidelity L. & G. Co. v. Baker, 54 Mo. App. 84; Tennessee Finance Co. v. Thompson, 278 Fed. 597; White v. State, 143 Tenn. 222, 226 S.W. 542; Houghton, Receiver, v. Burden, 228 U.S. 161; McWhite v. State, 143 Tenn. 322, 226 S.W. 222; Home Bond Co. v. McChesney, 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 573; Secs. 4421, 5562, R.S. 1929; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney, 130 Mo. App. 95; Secs. 6732 and 6733, Shannon's Code of Tennessee; Sec. 2969, R.S. 1929; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Sec. 2630, R.S. 1929; Henderson v. Tolman, 130 Mo. App. 500, 109 S.W. 76; Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 169 Mo. 38, 68 S.W. 917. (b) Relators' business constitutes a public nuisance. Crawford v. Kansas, 28 Kan. 726; State v. Lindsay, 85 Kan. 79; State v. Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 847; Kentucky State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 281 S.W. 188; State v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21, 49 N.E. 809; Columbian Athletic Club v. State, 143 Ind. 98; Sec. 4347, R.S. 1929; Art. 1, Sec. 1, subsections 29, 44, 61, Charter of Kansas City; State ex rel. Crow v. County, 207 Mo. 439; State v. Martin, 77 N.J.L. 652, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 507. (c) Equity has power to enjoin a public nuisance even though the act of nuisance is a crime. State ex rel. Crow v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439; State ex rel. Orr v. Kearns, 264 S.W. 775; 158 U.S. 564, 39 U.S. (L. Ed.) 1092; Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Mylne & C. 141; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 31 L. Ed. 214; Stead v. Fortner, 255 Ill. 468, 99 N.E. 680; State ex rel. Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307; State ex rel. Crow v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439; State ex rel. Smith v. McMahon, and State ex rel. Smith v. Harcourt, 128 Kan. 772, 280 Pac. 906. (5) Respondent Harris had authority to appoint a receiver and without notice. Sec. 998, R.S. 1929; Railway Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 258. (6) No right to prohibition exists in this case. State ex rel. v. Calhoun, 234 S.W. 855; State ex rel. v. McQuillen, 262 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Ittner, 304 Mo. 135; State ex rel. v. Riley, 4 S.W. (2d) 482; State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329; State ex rel. v. Porterfield, 214 Mo. App. 37.

F.E. Williams, amicus curiae.

The advancement of money to wage earners upon wage assignments which are used as security to collect from the wage earners themselves, is in reality money lending, and...