State ex rel. Modern Finance Co. v. Bledsoe, 32818

• Decision Date: 19 March 1968
• Docket Number: No. 32818,32818
• Citation: 426 S.W.2d 737
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. MODERN FINANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Relator, Appellant, v. Frank S. BLEDSOE, Judge, Division 8, Magistrate Court, City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 737

426 S.W.2d 737

STATE of Missouri ex rel. MODERN FINANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Relator, Appellant, v. Frank S. BLEDSOE, Judge, Division 8, Magistrate Court, City

of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 32818.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

March 19, 1968.

Jack B. Schiff, Clayton, Hoffman & Shostak, Burton H. Shostak, St. Louis, for appellant.

Wilson Gray, St. Louis, for respondent.

TOWNSEND, Commissioner.

Relator's petition for certiorari, filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, alleged that on August 9, 1965, relator obtained a judgment in the court of respondent against one Joe Partee, from which no appeal was taken and that such judgment became final, that on May 6, 1966 relator procured from respondent an execution on said judgment returnable August 8, 1966, and that the Sheriff of St. Louis County on petitioner's order served a writ of garnishment thereon upon Victory Construction Company, a corporation, returnable August 8, 1966, that on or about August 16, 1966, said Partee filed with respondent a document headed 'Petition to Quash Execution and Garnishment and Motion for Restitution of Money Procured under Garnishment', that on September 6, 1966, respondent sustained Partee's petition to quash and ordered the garnishment released. Relator prayed the Circuit Court to issue a writ of certiorari directed to respondent, requiring him to certify a true, full and complete copy of the petition to quash, his rulings and orders thereon, and all other proceedings thereon or thereafter, in order that the court might adjudicate upon the legality of said proceedings. The prayer also included relator's request that respondent show cause why the above recited proceedings should not be held null and void and that the court enter its order rescinding respondent's orders, judgment and decree. Along with the application for certiorari relator filed its suggestions in support thereof. Relator contended therein that magistrate courts are inferior courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only powers expressly granted by statute and that a magistrate court has no jurisdiction to exercise the power purported to have been exercised under the circumstances set out in the petition.

On September 16, 1966 the court entered the following memorandum and order: 'Writ of certiorari ordered to issue to respondent, returnable with all records therein described returnable October 13, 1966 at 10 A.M. Respondent ordered to show cause on said date why his order of September 6, 1966 should not be held null and void, as prayed in relator's petition'.

On October 13, 1966 the court approved the following memorandum and entered the same as an order: 'Wilson Gray enters his appearance as attorney for respondent. Respondent makes no return to writ returnable this day and consents that the matter be submitted on the merits. Cause by consent submitted on pleadings and plaintiff's suggestions after Relator's memo in'. The court entered his judgment and order on November 17, 1966 overruling 'Petition of Relator Corporation for a writ of certiorari' for the reason that 'this Court is without jurisdiction. Petition of Relator dismissed'. Relator's motion for rehearing or a new trial having been overruled on December 21, 1966, this appeal followed.

The record before this Court on appeal does not include any statement by the Circuit Court of the grounds upon which it held that it was without jurisdiction in the premises.

'Under our procedure the office of the writ of certiorari is the same as at common law, and our courts may properly adopt the usages and principles applicable to the issuance of the writ as the same may have been developed under the common-law system, consistent, of course, with the letter and spirit of existing statutes.' State ex rel. Jacobs v. Trimble, 310 Mo. 150, 274 S.W. 1075, 1077.

The common-law writ of certiorari embodies a command by a court addressed to an inferior tribunal. It directs that the record of a proceeding in the latter be forwarded to the issuing court. The function of the writ is to bring that record before the issuing court for the purpose of determining whether the inferior tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or otherwise illegally, in situations where no appeal or other available mode of review is afforded, State ex rel. Kansas & T. Coal Ry. v. Shelton, 154 Mo. 670, 55 S.W. 1008, 1013, 50 L.R.A. 798, or where such other type of review is inadequate to meet the exigencies of the case. State ex rel. Hamilton v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. 513, 57 S.W. 281, 285, 50 L.R.A. 787.

The general jurisdiction of the circuit court in the area of certiorari is clear; by the Constitution of the State of Missouri it is established that 'the supreme court, courts of appeal, and circuit courts shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts and tribunals in their jurisdictions, and may issue and determine original remedial writs'. (Art. V, Sec. 4, V.A.M.S.).

Such being the power generally of a circuit court we proceed to consider other facets of the case before the circuit judge to determine whether there is anything in the nature of certiorari or in the peculiar facts presented to the supervising judge which would negate jurisdiction in his court.

The deficiencies in the record presented to this court on appeal are so manifold that it is necessary to indulge in alternative assumptions of fact in order intelligently to pass upon the action of the trial court.

First, it is assumed that the writ issued; that is the reasonable inference that can be drawn from the recited facts, namely, the order of the court directing the issuance of the writ 'returnable October 13, 1966 with all records therein described' and the memorandum of respondent dated October 13, 1966 reciting that 'respondent makes no return to writ returnable this day'. At this stage of the case we are not then concerned with a direct attack upon the petition as failing to state a cause of action; presumably the circuit court passed upon the question of whether or not the petition made out a prima facie case or else it would not have issued the writ. However, as the application for the writ is made ex parte, State ex rel. Powell v. Shocklee, 237 Mo. 460, 141 S.W. 614, the respondent is presented with alternative courses of conduct--(1) he may make return as commanded or (2) he may move to quash the writ before return has been made. State ex rel. Underwood v. Fraker, 168 Mo. 445, 68 S.W. 576. If he chooses the latter alternative, 'A motion to dismiss or quash the writ for want of jurisdiction or right to relief prayed by the petition is in effect a demurrer, confessing all facts well pleaded, but searching the whole record * * *'. State ex rel. and to Use of Berraw v. Sestric, 349 Mo. 182, 159 S.W.2d 786, 787; State ex rel. Callahan v. Hess, 348 Mo. 388, 153 S.W.2d 713, 714, quoting 4 Houts Missouri Pleading and Practice, § 1400. In the absence of a motion to quash the writ, a respondent has no choice not to certify his record as ordered. In that posture of the case one looks only to the record to determine whether petitioner is entitled to the relief asked; there is then no occasion to refer to the allegations of the petition.

The memorandum of the present respondent, filed in thecircuit court and stating that he was making no return, hardly satisfies the conventional concept of a motion to quash the writ. The question then arises whether it can perform the function of a motion to quash, no matter how inartistically framed. The memorandum goes on to say that respondent consents that the matter be submitted on the merits. In an excess of liberality we shall treat the memorandum as a motion to quash, although the record...