State ex rel. Major v. Wood
Decision Date | 21 March 1911 |
Citation | 233 Mo. 357,135 S.W. 932 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. MAJOR, Atty. Gen., v. WOOD et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of E. W. Major, Attorney General, against Roy C. Wood and others to oust respondents from their offices in the incorporated City of Wellston. Writ granted.
Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., Wm. R. Gentry, and Johnson, Houts, Marlatt & Hawes, for relator. J. C. Kiskaddon, B. L. Matthews, and Martin T. Farrow, for respondents.
At its May term, 1909, the county court of St. Louis county incorporates Wellston as a city of the third class, proceeding under R. S. 1909, § 8529, and designates its first officers. In January, 1910, Mr. Attorney General exhibits here an information, ex officio, in the nature of quo warranto, to oust respondents as such officers. Respondents (mayor, marshal, attorney, police judge, assessor, collector, treasurer, and councilmen of said city) enter their appearance and make return. Thereafter we appoint Jesse C. Hargus, Esq., of the St. Clair bar, our special commissioner with donation of power to take testimony and report findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with such testimony. Thereafter Commissioner Hargus qualifies, hears the cause, and in September reports—finding for relator and recommending that judgment of ouster go on the ground the judgment of incorporation is void for fraud and want of jurisdiction. Thereafter respondents file exceptions, and the cause is finally submitted in January, 1911, on report, testimony, exceptions, briefs, and oral argument. Our learned Attorney General's information is not assailed by respondents in matter of form or substance; therefore it need not be reproduced. It is full enough in allegation to justify all the offered proofs on each issue raised. The cause proceeds on the theory that the sole right of respondents to act as officers of Wellston is based on its incorporation by the county court. If that incorporation is valid, they are not usurping official authority; otherwise, otherwise. The information, inter alia, charges the incorporation is void: (1) Because of lack of jurisdiction in the county court (and herein of the incorporating petition not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action); and (2) because of fraud. Respondents' return traverses those allegations. The forensic controversy is pitched on that line, and there the adversary parties go up to battle.
The material part of the statute in judgment (section 8529, R. S. 1909) reads: "* * * Any city or town of the state not incorporated may become a city of the class to which its population would entitle it under this article, and be incorporated under the law for the government of cities of that class, in the following manner: Whenever a majority of the inhabitants of any such city or town shall present a petition to the county court of the county in which such city or town is situated, setting forth the metes and bounds of their city or town and commons, and praying that they may be incorporated, and a police established for their local government, and for the preservation and regulation of any commons appertaining to such city or town, and if the court shall be satisfied that a majority of the taxable inhabitants of such town have signed such petition, the court shall declare such city or town incorporated, designating in such order the metes and bounds thereof, and thenceforth the inhabitants within such bounds shall be a body politic and incorporated, by the name and style of the city of ......, or the town of ......; and the first officer of such city or town shall be designated by the order of the court, who shall hold their offices until the first general election of officers, as provided by law, and until their successors shall be duly elected and qualified. * * *"
The vital part of the challenged incorporating petition reads:
The finding of fact by our special commissioner (so far as material to questions raised) follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Russell v. Highway Commission
...v. Huck, 267 Mo. 333; State ex rel. Rippee v. Forrest, 177 Mo. App. 245; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State ex rel. Mayor v. Wood, 233 Mo. 357; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477; Eaton v. St. Charles Co., 76 Mo. 492; Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289; Daugherty v. Matthews, 35 Mo. ......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore
... ... State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S.W. 457; Manker v. Faulhaber, 94 Mo. 430, 6 S.W. 372; Mechem on ... Attorney General v. Ransom, 73 Mo. 78; State ex rel. v. Collier, 72 Mo. 17; State ex inf. Major v. Breuer, 235 Mo. 240, 138 S.W. 515; State ex inf. Major v. McKay, 249 Mo. 249, 155 S.W. 396; ... Limitations (8 Ed.), p. 139; 23 Am. & English Encyclopedia of Law (2 Ed.), 431; Speer v. Wood, 128 Ark. 183; State ex rel. v. Kohler, 228 N.W. 895; State ex rel. v. Gerbig, 24 Pac. (2d) 313; ... ...
-
Johnson v. Underwood
...in the procedure to levy a special tax is termed an "essential" step and must be strictly followed or tax bills are void. State ex rel. Major v. Ward, 233 Mo. 357; State v. Colvert, 273 Mo. 198; Meade v. Jasper County, 266 S.W. 469; Mississippi Fox River Drain. Dist. v. Ackley, 270 Mo. 157;......
-
State ex rel. Russell v. State Highway Com'n
... ... Rippee v. Forrest, 177 Mo.App. 245; State ex inf ... Barrett v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State ex rel ... Mayor v. Wood, 233 Mo. 357; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 ... Mo. 477; Eaton v. St. Charles Co., 76 Mo. 492; ... Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289; Daugherty v ... ...