State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 02 April 1914 |
| Citation | 165 S.W. 729,257 Mo. 19 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. UNITED RAILWAYS COMPANY v. GEORGE D. REYNOLDS et al., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ quashed.
Boyle & Priest, R. E. Blodgett and T. E. Francis for relator.
(1) A judge of this court has power to issue a writ of certiorari in vacation. State ex rel. v. Dearing, 184 Mo. 647; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 105 Mo. 103; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 104 Mo. 619. (2) Even though the judge issuing the writ of certiorari had no power to issue it nevertheless the record having been filed in this court pursuant to the writ, this court may ratify and adopt the writ and take such action with respect to the record filed as the rules of law and the demands of justice require. In re Thirty-fourth St., 81 Pa. St. 27. (3) Certiorari lies where the lower court has jurisdiction but exercises it in an unwarranted manner. State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123; State ex rel. v. Smith, 176 Mo. 90. It also lies to correct an error appearing on the face of the record that cannot be reached by appeal or writ of error, although the lower court had jurisdiction to decide the matter complained of. State ex rel. v. Mosman, 231 Mo. 482. (4) The Constitution enjoins upon the Courts of Appeals the duty of following the "last previous ruling of the Supreme Court." Section 6 of Amendment of 1884 to Article 6 of Constitution. (a) This constitutional mandate is a limitation upon the power of the Courts of Appeals, and hence when one of these courts refuses to follow the "last previous ruling of the Supreme Court," it is acting beyond its jurisdiction, or, to express it in another way, is exercising in an unwarranted manner the general jurisdiction it possesses to decide the case. State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 238 Mo. 189. (b) But even though the failure of a Court of Appeals to observe this Constitutional mandate would not, technically speaking, constitute action beyond or outside of its jurisdiction, still the Supreme Court would have power, by means of certiorari, to compel such observance, since the Constitution makes it the duty of the Supreme Court to exercise "superintending control" over the Courts of Appeals, by certiorari and other remedies. Sec. 3, Art. 6, Constitution; Sec. 8 Amendment of 1884 to Art. 6 of Constitution. These writs thus authorized are sui generis and are not to be measured or circumscribed by the practice that obtained at common law with respect to such writs, but, in the nature of the thing should be sufficiently elastic and comprehensive to enable the Supreme Court to efficaciously discharge the "superintending" function enjoined upon it. (5) The Constitution enjoins upon the Supreme Court the duty of exercising a superintending control over the Courts of Appeals by means of certiorari and other extraordinary remedies. Sec. 3, Art. 6, Constitution; Sec. 8, Amendment of 1884. This constitutional mandate requires the Supreme Court to keep the courts of appeals within the limitations and restrictions imposed upon them by the Constitution, and, so far as this duty is concerned, all such limitations and restrictions -- whether with respect to territory, or to amount, subject-matter or parties involved, or to the requirement of following the "last previous ruling of the Supreme Court" -- are of equal dignity. State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 238 Mo. 189; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123. (6) The Court of Appeals, in the decision appearing in the record filed in this court, failed to follow the "last previous ruling of the Supreme Court," in that -- (a) The Court of Appeals decided that the instruction on the measure of damages in this action for personal injuries, permitting an award for loss of earnings, was not erroneous, notwithstanding there was no proof that plaintiff had lost any earnings and no proof as to what wages he had received or that he had ever received any wages, prior to his injury; whereas, (b) the "last previous ruling of the Supreme Court" was, that an instruction, in such a case, permitting an award for loss of earnings, was erroneous, unless the evidence definitely showed what plaintiff's earnings had been, prior to his injury. Davidson v. Transit Co., 211 Mo. 344; Slaughter v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 275; Duke v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 347.
Glendy B. Arnold for respondents; Johnson, Rutledge & Lashly of counsel.
(1) The jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is vested in the Supreme Court and not the judges of that court. Missouri Constitution, art. 6, sec. 3; Amend. 1884, sec. 8. Where the law authorizes or contemplates the doing of a judicial act it is understood to mean that the court in term time may do it and the judges in vacation may not, without express authority, act therein. State ex rel. v. Woodson, 161 Mo. 444; Newman v. Hammond, 46 Ind. 119; Reyburn v. Bassett, McCahon (Kan.) 86; Fisk v. Thorp, 51 Neb. 1; State v. Atherton, 19 Nev. 332. (2) The courts of appeals are courts of last resort, and their judgments, in causes within their jurisdiction, and which are not in excess of that jurisdiction, are final and cannot be reviewed nor controlled by the Supreme Court by any legal process. Constitution, art. 6, secs. 12, 19, 27; Amendment 1884, secs. 3, 5 and 6. (3) The Supreme Court is given exclusive jurisdiction of all cases which may be brought to that court by writs of error and appeals; and the courts of appeals are likewise given exclusive jurisdiction of all cases which may be brought to those courts by writs of error and appeals. Constitution, art. 6, secs. 12 and 27; Amendment 1884, sec. 5. (4) Section 6 of the Amendment of 1884, which provides that "the last previous rulings of the Supreme Court on any question of law or equity, shall in all cases, be controlling authority in said Courts of Appeals" does not purport to define the jurisdiction of said courts of appeals. That jurisdiction is expressly defined by other sections of the Constitution. (5) The Supreme Court has plenary power, by prohibition, mandamus and certiorari, to keep the courts of appeals within the prescribed limits of their jurisdiction. Constitution, art. 6, sec. 3; Amendment 1884, sec. 8; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123; State ex rel. v. Smith, 172 Mo. 446; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 105 Mo. 103. (6) The courts of appeals are bound to decide every question affecting or involving their jurisdiction in accord with the ruling of the Supreme Court, whether those rulings are expressed or unexpressed, and if those courts fail in that duty the error may be corrected, in the Supreme Court, by an appropriate remedy. See authorities under point 5. (7) Certiorari from the Supreme Court does not lie to review the rulings of the courts of appeals in causes within their jurisdiction, which do not affect or involve that jurisdiction on the ground that said courts refuse to follow "the last previous rulings of the Supreme Court" in other cases. State ex rel. v. Smith, 173 Mo. 398; State ex rel. v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174; Railroad v. Smith, 154 Mo. 300; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 216 Mo. 336; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 136; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 238 Mo. 232; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 207 Mo. 107; Curtis v. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 125 Mo. 632. (8) The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, by appeal or error, to review the decisions of the courts of appeals on any question of law or equity. Constitution, art. 6, Amend. 1884. (9) The sole office of certiorari from the Supreme Court to the courts of appeals is to control the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of appeals. Railroad v. State B. of E., 64 Mo. 308; State ex rel. v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174; State ex rel. v. Bland, 168 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Smith, 173 Mo. 398; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123; Ward v. B. of E. of Gentry Co., 135 Mo. 319; State ex rel. v. Smith, 176 Mo. 99; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 190 Mo. 588; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 216 Mo. 344; State ex rel. v. Wooten, 139 Mo.App. 231; State ex rel. v. Baker, 170 Mo. 390; State ex rel. v. Smith, 173 Mo. 414; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 238 Mo. 204. (10) Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 190 Mo. 589; State ex rel. v. Kansas City, 89 Mo. 34; State ex rel. v. Springer, 134 Mo. 212; State ex rel. v. Shelton, 154 Mo. 670; State ex rel. v. Woodson, 161 Mo. 444; State ex rel. v. Bland, 168 Mo. 1. (11) Not one of the decisions of the Supreme Court which the relator charges that the court of appeals declined to follow contains a single word or line which, in the slightest degree, touched upon or affects the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. Neither the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, nor of the courts of appeals is either directly or indirectly presented, involved, discussed or decided in those cases. (12) A Court of Appeals which does not follow the last previous rulings of the Supreme Court on some non-jurisdictional point of law does not exceed its jurisdiction. Lampson v. Platt, 1 Iowa, 558; Monreal v. Bush, 46 Cal. 79; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 216 Mo. 344. (13) "In any case where the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and the parties are before it by the due service of proper process, the jurisdiction is never ousted by the erroneous exercise of the power which it confers, and the judgment in the case, though it may be marked by error which will cause its reversal by a higher court, is not for that reason void." Fiene v. Kirchoff, 176 Mo. 516; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328. (14) Jurisdiction is the power to hear and to decide. A judgment of the court is the result of the exercise of jurisdiction. Where the court is given power to decide, and its decision is responsive to the issues presented, it ought never to be adjudged to...
To continue reading
Request your trial