State ex rel. Winkelman v. Westhues

• Decision Date: 17 February 1925
• Docket Number: 25276
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WINKELMAN et al. v. WESTHUES, Judge
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

269 S.W. 379

STATE ex rel. WINKELMAN et al. v. WESTHUES, Judge

No. 25276

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 17, 1925

W. W Henderson, of St. Louis, for relators.

Calfee & Williams, of Jefferson City, for respondent.

In Banc.

OPINION

DAVID E. BLAIR, J.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition, wherein it is contended that respondent Westhues exceeded his jurisdiction as judge of the Cole county circuit court in appointing respondent C. C. Carson as receiver for the Standard Crate & Filler Company, at the instance of certain stockholders. Our preliminary rule issued, respondents made separate returns to said rule, and relators filed reply thereto. On this state of the record, the case was duly briefed, argued, and submitted at our April, 1924, term, as a live case.

Soon after such submission, and at some time prior to May 27 1924, the Standard Crate & Filler Company was adjudged a bankrupt, and C. C. Carson, joined by relators as one of the respondents here, and Ira H. Lohman were appointed by the referee in bankruptcy in the federal district court as receivers of that court. On May 27, 1924, said receivers filed their application in this court for an order amending our preliminary rule so as to permit respondent Westhues to make a proper order authorizing C. C. Carson, appointed as receiver by respondent Westhues, to turn over to himself and Ira H. Lohman, as receivers of the bankruptcy court, all the property and effects of the Standard Crate & Filler Company. Such application was sustained by this court on May 30, 1924. Respondent Westhues has made such order, and all the property of the Standard Crate & Filler Company has been delivered by the receiver, appointed by respondent, to receivers of the bankruptcy court.

There is, therefore, nothing left in this case for decision, except the bare, abstract question of the jurisdiction of Judge Westhues to appoint a receiver under the circumstances here giving rise to the challenge of his jurisdiction. In other words, the case, which was a live case when filed in this court and when submitted, by the occurrence of subsequent events, has become merely a moot case.

If we should now hold that respondent had no jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction in making the appointment of a receiver, the result would be that respondent would be prohibited from holding the property through his receiver. But such order could avail relators nothing and...