State ex rel. Railroad Co. v. Hall

• Citation: 27 S.W.2d 1027
• Decision Date: 15 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 29834.,29834.
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. WILLARD P. HALL, Judge of Circuit Court of Jackson County, and JOHN J. MURPHY, By His Next Friend, TERRANCE W. IMES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

27 S.W.2d 1027 THE STATE EX REL. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
WILLARD P. HALL, Judge of Circuit Court of Jackson County, and JOHN J. MURPHY, By His Next Friend, TERRANCE W. IMES. No. 29834. Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc. May 15, 1930.

Prohibition.

RULE MADE ABSOLUTE.

Edward J. White and Hackney & Welch for relator.

(1) The order directing the defendant to produce for plaintiff's inspection a part of the defendant's claim or investigation file, being statements taken after the accident, was wholly without the jurisdiction of the court. State ex rel. Railway Co. v. Woods, 316 Mo. 1032, 292 S.W. 1033; People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court, 156 N.E. 84, 245 N.Y. 24; State v. Hall, 175 Pac. 267, 55 Mont. 182; State v. Yee Guck, 195 Pac. 363, 99 Ore. 231; Taylor v. State, 221 S.W. 611; Tinker v. State, 253 S.W. 531; Davis v. State, 270 S.W. 1022; State v. Bankston, 116 So. 565; Sprinkle v. State, 102 So. 844, 137 Miss. 731; People v. Nields, 232 Pac. 985, 70 Cal. App. 191; Currie v. State, 279 S.W. 834; Ex parte Schoepf, 74 Ohio St. 1, 77 N.E. 276; Franklin Twp. v. Crane, 80 N.J. Eq. 509, 85 Atl. 408. (2) The court had no jurisdiction to order produced for inspection documents made in the investigation of the facts or in preparation for trial, because the same are not "evidence." State ex rel. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123; 18 C.J. 1119, 1126; 1 Pomeroy's Eq. Juris. sec. 201 et seq.; Wigram on Discovery, sec. 342; Hare on Discovery, 183, 189, 9 R.C.L. 174, sec. 13. (3) The petition for the production and inspection was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction to make the order. Dowden v. Mfg. Co., 199 Mo. App. 657; State ex inf. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1; 18 C.J. 1093; 9 R.C.L. 174, sec. 13; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 176; Thompson on Trials, secs. 743-757; Ex parte Clark, 46 L.R.A. 837; Beebe v. Equitable Mut. Assn., 76 Iowa, 129; Jenkins v. Bennett, 40 S.C. 393; United States v. Terminal Railway Assn., 154 Fed. 268.

Atwood, Wickersham, Hill & Chilcott for respondents.

(1) The power of a trial court to order an inspection and copy of papers is both inherent and statutory; the power existed at common law and has been confirmed and strengthened by statute. State ex rel. v. Anderson, 270 Mo. 533; Sec. 1378, R.S. 1919. (2) The contention that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order an inspection of the reports and statements in question because the same are not "evidence" is wholly untenable. Sec. 1374, R.S. 1919; State v. Tippett, 296 S.W. 135. (3) There is no merit in defendant's contention that the petition for the production and inspection was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction. The petition for the order, the plaintiff's petition, the answer to plaintiff's petition for the order, all show that the reports and statements ordered to be inspected contain evidence relating to the merits of the action or defense.

GANTT, J.

Relator seeks to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, in the case of John J. Murphy, by next friend Terrance W. Imes, v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. Our provisional rule was granted, and respondents demur to the petition "for the reason that no ground is properly alleged for the granting of the writ of prohibition."

The facts summarized from the petition follow:

John J. Murphy, twelve years of age, claims that on August 3, 1926, he suffered injuries by being forced to jump from a moving car by the employees of relator. August 9, 1926, the claim agent of relator procured from Murphy a written...