State ex rel. Williams v. Buzard

• Citation: 190 S.W.2d 907,354 Mo. 719
• Decision Date: 05 November 1945
• Docket Number: 39602
• Parties: State of Missouri at the Relation of Frances Williams, Relator, v. Paul A. Buzard, Judge of Division No. 8 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

190 S.W.2d 907

354 Mo. 719

State of Missouri at the Relation of Frances Williams, Relator, v. Paul A. Buzard, Judge of Division No. 8 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri

No. 39602

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 5, 1945

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1945.

Original Proceeding in Mandamus.

PEREMPTORY WRIT ISSUED.

E E. Thompson, Alfred H. Osborn and Charles V Garnett for relator.

(1) Under Section 85 of the New Civil Code, relator is entitled to compel disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses obtained by the opposite party at the time and place of the casualty. Section 85 provides an efficient remedy for the evils resulting from the conception of a lawsuit as a trial by battle, and affords a means for eliminating delay surprise and concealment of evidence. State ex rel. Iron Fireman Corp. v. Ward, 351 Mo. 761, 173 S.W.2d 920; State ex rel. Evans v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123, 149 S.W. 473; State ex rel. Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 325 Mo. 102, 27 S.W.2d 1027; State ex rel. Page v. Terte, 324 Mo. 925, 25 S.W.2d 459. (2) The right to disclosure of names of witnesses is fully established by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as construed by the Federal Courts; and since Section 85 of the Missouri Code was copied from and enacted after Rule 33 had been authoritatively construed to include that right, it was clearly the legislative intent to adopt not only the rule itself but also the construction that had been put upon it by the Federal Courts. General Box Co. v. Mo. Utilities Co., 331 Mo. 845, 55 S.W.2d 442; Creden v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, 1 F.R.D. 168; Nichols v. Sandborn, 24 F.Supp. 908; Kingsway Press v. Farrell Pub. Co., 30 F.Supp. 775; Town of River Junction v. Maryland Cas. Co., 110 F.2d 278; Penn v. Automobile Ins. Co., 27 F.Supp. 336; Civil Aeronautics Board v. Canadian Airways, 41 F.Supp. 1006; Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 139 F.2d 469; Lewis v. United Airlines Transport Corp., 27 F.Supp. 946; Fleming v. Bernardi, 1 F.R.D. 624. (3) The right to disclosure of witness lists under Federal Rule 33 is not dependent upon the right to compel such disclosure by deposition under Federal Rule 26(b). Texas Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 12 F.2d 317; Bailey v. New England Life Ins. Co., 1 F.R.D. 494; Town of River Junction v. Maryland Cas. Co., supra. (4) The identity of witnesses to the event in suit is relevant matter which may be reached by interrogatories. Chiordi v. Jarnigan, 46 N.M. 396, 129 P.2d 640; Brewster v. Technicolor, Inc., 2 F.R.D. 186; Fox v. Fisher, 39 F.Supp. 878; Civil Aeronautics Board v. Canadian Airways, supra; Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 3 F.R.D. 302; Heublein & Bro. v. Bushmill Wine & Products Co., 2 F.R.D. 190; Hoffman v. Palmer, 129 F.2d 976; Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra.

Charles L. Carr, Alvin T. Trippe and William S. Hogsett for respondent.

(1) Section 85 contains no provision requiring a party litigant to disclose his witnesses. Section 85 of Civil Code, Laws 1943, p. 379. (2) By refusing to adopt Federal Rules 26(a) and 26(b) the General Assembly clearly manifested its intention that the new Civil Code should not require the involuntary disclosure of witnesses. State ex rel. Klein v. Hughes, 351 Mo. 651, 173 S.W.2d 877; Federal Rules 26(a) and 26(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., p. 542; National Bank v. Current, 142 Ky. 353, 134 S.W. 479; 50 Am. Jur., p. 263; 59 C.J. 1059; Commonwealth v. Burry, 5 Pa. Co. 481; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Owens, 164 Ky. 557, 175 S.W. 1039; Eversole v. Eversole, 169 Ky. 793, 185 S.W. 487; Rich v. Keyser, 54 Pa. St. 86; Woomer v. County, 17 Pa. Co. 665. (3) Federal Rule 33 is held by the federal decisions to authorize discovery by interrogatories as broad as that authorized by depositions under Federal Rules 26(a) and 26(b). 15 Tennessee Law Rev. 737; 2 Moore's Federal Practice, pp. 2616, 2620; Dixon v. Phifer, 30 F.Supp. 627; Nichols v. Sanborn Co., 24 F.Supp. 908; Kingsway Press v. Farrell Pub. Corp., 30 F.Supp. 775; Roth v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 4 F.R.D. 302; Brewster v. Technicolor, Inc., 2 F.R.D. 186; Landry v. O'Hara Vessels, Inc., 29 F.Supp. 423. (4) The federal decisions which have required the disclosure, on interrogatories, of the names of a party's witnesses do not aid plaintiff's position here. Authorities cited under (3), supra; Poppino v. Jones Store Co., 1 F.R.D. 215; American Far Eastern Syndicate v. The Raphael Semmes, 3 F.R.D. 71; Barter v. Eastern Steamship Lines, 1 F.R.D. 65; Stefaniak v. Boland, 2 F.R.D. 110; Mulloney v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 26 F.Supp. 148; Colpak v. Hetterick, 40 F.Supp. 350; Piorkowski v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 407; McCarthy v. Palmer, 29 F.Supp. 585. (5) Section 85 is not intended to authorize a party to appropriate his opponent's preparation for trial. State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 325 Mo. 102, 27 S.W.2d 1027, distinguished and reaffirmed in State ex rel. Iron Fireman Corp. v. Ward, 351 Mo. 761, 173 S.W.2d 920; 2 Moore's Fed. Pr., 1944 Supp., p. 264; Nelson v. Reid, 4 F.R.D. 199; Stewart Warner Corp. v. Staley, 4 F.R.D. 333; Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 4 F.R.D. 328; Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 30 F.Supp. 936; Thomas French & Sons, Ltd., v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co., 30 F.Supp. 903; Stark v. American Dredging Co., 3 F.R.D. 300; McCarthy v. Palmer, 29 F.Supp. 585; Byers Theaters v. Murphy, 1 F.R.D. 286; Piorkowski v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 407; State of Maryland v. Pan-American Bus Lines, 1 F.R.D. 213; Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohn & Haas Co., 3 F.R.D. 328. (6) Section 85 should not be construed to deny a party's common law right to the exclusive use of his own witness list. State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 325 Mo. 102, 27 S.W.2d 1027; 50 C.J. 779; Perry v. Strawbridge, 209 Mo. 621, 108 S.W. 641; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380; Bostic v. Workman, 224 Mo.App. 645, 31 S.W.2d 218; 59 C.J. 1040. (7) Absent a showing that defendant's witness list is relevant and material to the issues, a judicial order compelling defendant to disclose it to plaintiff would be unconstitutional. Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution; Sec. 15, Art. I, Mo. Constitution; State ex rel. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542, 163 S.W. 860; State ex rel. Mo. Broadcasting Co. v. O'Malley, 344 Mo. 639, 127 S.W.2d 684. (8) Section 85 is subject to the implied limitation that interrogatories may only inquire for information which is relevant and material to the issues. Newell v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 144 F.2d 338; Boysell Co. v. Colonial Coverlet Co., 29 F.Supp. 122; Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, 30 F.Supp. 275; American Far Eastern Syndicate v. The Raphael Semmes, 3 F.R.D. 71; Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 4 F.R.D. 328; Hartford-Empire Co. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 4 F.R.D. 210; Landry v. O'Hara Vessels, Inc., 29 F.Supp. 423; McInerney v. Wm. P. McDonald Const. Co., 28 F.Supp. 557; Doucette v. Eastern States Transp. Co., Inc., 1 F.R.D. 66; Stanley Works v. C.S. Mersick Co., 1 F.R.D. 43; Tudor v. Leslie, 1 F.R.D. 448. (9) The names of mere onlookers -- persons having no part in the accident -- would not be relevant or material to the issues. State ex rel. Evans v. Broaddus, 245 Mo. 123, 149 S.W. 473; State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 325 Mo. 102, 27 S.W.2d 1027; State ex rel. Page v. Terte, 324 Mo. 925, 25 S.W.2d 459; Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., 27 F.Supp. 946; Poppino v. Jones Store Co., 1 F.R.D. 215; American Far Eastern Syndicate v. The Raphael Semmes, 3 F.R.D. 71; Barter v. Eastern Steamship Lines, 1 F.R.D. 65; Stefaniak v. Boland, 2 F.R.D. 110; Mulloney v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 26 F.Supp. 148; Henwood v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 7 Fed. Rules Serv. 33.31, Case No. 2; Biener v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 160 S.W.2d 780; Leuchtefeld v. Marglous, 151 S.W.2d 710; 31 C.J.S., pp. 864-5, 866. (10) Section 89 of the Civil Code proves the legislative intent that interrogatories under Section 85 may only seek relevant, material and admissible evidence. Sec. 89 of Civil Code; Laws 1943, p. 381; Stack v. General Baking Co., 283 Mo. 396; St. Louis v. Christian Brothers College, 257 Mo. 541; Darlington Lbr. Co. v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 658; State ex rel. Taylor v. Daues, 313 Mo. 200; State ex rel. Gass v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 394; State ex rel. Emmons v. Farmer, 271 Mo. 306; Bassen v. Monckton, 308 Mo. 641; State v. Irvine, 335 Mo. 261, 72 S.W.2d 96. (11) Sections 85, 86, 87, 88 and 142 of the Civil Code are all subject to the same limitation of relevancy. Sections 85, 86, 87, 88 and 142 of Civil Code; Laws 1943, pp. 379, 380, 396. (12) The provision in Section 85 for objections to interrogatories presupposes that interrogatories must be relevant and material to the issues. Sec. 85 of Civil Code; Laws 1943, p. 379.

OPINION

Hyde, J.

Mandamus to require entry of order to compel answers to relator's interrogatories by the Kansas City Public Service Company (hereinafter called the defendant) in her suit for damages for personal injuries.

The principal question is whether the new civil code [Laws Mo. 1943, pp. 353-357, Discovery, secs. 85-89; Mo. Stat. Ann. 847.1-847.145, Discovery, secs. 847.85-847.89] authorizes the court to require the defendant therein to answer the following question:

"(8) Please state the names and addresses of all persons whose names and addresses were taken by any employee of your corporation at the scene of the casualty?"

At the hearing on defendant's objections, it was agreed "that the operator of defendant's street car referred to in plaintiff's petition took the names and addresses of witnesses at the scene of the casualty referred to in plaintiff's petition; and...