State ex rel. Walker v. Locust Creek Drainage Dist., 30807.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 30807.,30807.
• Citation: 58 S.W.2d 452
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WALKER, Pros. Atty., v. LOCUST CREEK DRAINAGE DIST.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 S.W.2d 452

STATE ex rel. WALKER, Pros. Atty., v. LOCUST CREEK DRAINAGE DIST.

No. 30807.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 16, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County; Paul Van Osdol, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by the State on the relation of A. B. Walker, Prosecuting Attorney of Sullivan County, against the Locust Creek Drainage District and others. From a judgment dismissing the petition, the relator appeals.

Appeal transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.

A. B. Walker and L. E. Atherton, both of Milan, and Campbell & Campbell, of Kirksville, for appellant.

C. A. Johnson, of Linneus, and Gilbert Lamb, of Salisbury, for respondents.

GANTT, Judge.

Proceeding in mandamus by the state, at the relation of the prosecuting attorney of Sullivan county, and against a circuit court drainage district and its supervisors. Relator seeks to compel the district to construct and maintain a bridge across its drainage ditch intersecting a public highway in Sullivan county. The court found in favor of defendants and dismissed the petition. Relator appealed.

The record challenges the appellate jurisdiction of this court. A determination of the question does not call for a summary of the pleadings. The amount involved does not fix jurisdiction in this court, for by agreement the bridge would cost no more than $7,000. However, in the petition relator attempted to raise a constitutional question by alleging as follows: "That if it is true as defendant claims and asserts, but which plaintiff denies, that it is the intent and purpose of Sections 232 to 267, inclusive of the Act of the 47th General Assembly, approved May 24, 1913, to fix upon the county wherein such bridges are to be built and in this instance to fix upon Sullivan County and the taxpayers thereof the cost of building such bridge and approaches, then said law or laws are in violation of Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, and that said Act contains in the body thereof matter not clearly expressed in the title of the Act and is in violation of the Constitution aforesaid and is null and void."

We do not find that the court ruled on the constitutionality of this act. If it did so and ruled against plaintiff, no exception to the ruling appears in the record. Furthermore, the question was not mentioned in the motion for a new trial. It...