State ex rel. Wirt v. The County Court of Cass County

• Decision Date: 31 May 1909
• Citation: 119 S.W. 1010,137 Mo.App. 698
• Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. J. K. WIRT, Relator, v. THE COUNTY COURT OF CASS COUNTY, Respondent
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

119 S.W. 1010

137 Mo.App. 698

THE STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. J. K. WIRT, Relator, v. THE COUNTY COURT OF CASS COUNTY, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 31, 1909

March 29, 1909;

Original Proceedings by Mandamus.

WRIT GRANTED.

Writ granted.

John A Davis with R. T. Railey & Son for relator.

(1) On the record presented to this court by the pleadings, mandamus is the only speedy, appropriate, and adequate remedy, to settle the questions of law involved in this action. State ex rel. v. Turner, 210 Mo. 85; State ex rel. v. Meyers, 80 Mo. 601; Bean v. Barton County, 33 Mo.App. 636; Scarritt v. Jackson County, 89 Mo.App. 585; State ex rel. v McCammon, 111 Mo.App. 630-633; State ex rel. v Russell, 131 Mo.App. 638; State ex rel. v. Mitchell, not yet reported. (See printed opinion of Judge Goode on file in this court in case of T. N. Haynes et al. v. Cass Co. Court et al. (2) When acting within the limits prescribed by its Charter, and the Constitution and Laws of this State, the acts and proceedings of the council of said city of Pleasant Hill are as valid and binding as an act of the Legislature. Water Co. v. Lebanon, 163 Mo. 260. (3) Pleasant Hill census--conclusive in this proceeding--cannot be called in question collaterally. L. & M. Water Co. v. City of Lebanon, 163 Mo. 260; State v. Wilson (Mo.), 115 S.W. 566; State ex rel. v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 20; State ex rel. Liechter v. Miller, 48 Mo. 252; Jeffries v. Wright, 51 Mo. 220; Hardin v. Lee, 51 Mo. 244; Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 264; Fulkerson v. Davenport, 70 Mo. 545. Ordinance--census--statutes authorizing census taken by city of Pleasant Hill. R. S. 1899, sec. 3028, 6300; Babb v. Bruere, 23 Mo.App. 607; Cooper v. Hunt, 103 Mo.App. 17; State v. Schenkel, 129 Mo.App. 237; Scott v. Crews, 72 Mo. 263; Gray v. Bowles, 74 Mo. 423; Colvin v. Six, 79 Mo. 200; State v. Evans, 83 Mo. 320, 322; Eppright v. Kauffman, 90 Mo. 27; Karnes v. Alexander, 92 Mo. 671; Nanson v. Jacobs, 93 Mo. 344; Roan v. Winn, 93 Mo. 512; Lingo v. Burford, 112 Mo. 155; Leonard v. Sparks, 117 Mo. 114 to 117; Union Depot Co. v. Frederick, 117 Mo. 148; McLaughlin v. Schultz, 125 Mo. 473; State ex rel. v. McKee, 150 Mo. 243; Howland v. Railroad Co., 134 Mo. 479; L. & W. Co. v. Lebanon, 163, Mo. 259, 260; Burnham v. Rogers, 167 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 32; K. C. ex rel. v. Winner, 58 Mo.App. 607; Kendrick v. Mfg. Co., 60 Mo.App. 25; State Co. v. Cornice & Iron Co., 62 Mo.App. 575; Coleman v. Dalton, 71 Mo.App. 24; Sutton v. Cole, 73 Mo.App. 521; Livingston v. Allen, 83 Mo.App. 298; Weber v. Lane, 99 Mo.App. 80; Griesel v. Jones, 123 Mo.App. 57; Strobel v. Clark, 128 Mo.App. 55; State ex rel. v. Russell, 131 Mo.App. 638; Smith v. Lyle Rock Co., 111 S.W. (Mo. App.) 831; 1 Black on Judgments (2 Ed.), sec. 273; Freeman on Judgments (2 and 4 Eds.), secs. 523-4; Van Fleet on Collateral Attack, sec. 62; 17 A. and Ency. L. (2 Ed.), pages 1082, et seq.; Rassier v. Grimmer (Ind.), 28 N.E. 867; Hiatt v. Town of Darlington (Ind.), 53 N.E. 827; Davis v. Bickell (Ind.), 58 N.E. 208; Railroad v. Freeze (Ind.), 82 N.E. 762; Tullis v. Shaw (Ind.), 83 N.E. 378; Jones v. Leed (Ind.), 83 N. E., 527; Rice v. Travis (Ill.), 74 N.E. 802; Allured v. Voller (Mich.), 70 N.W. 1037; Miller v. Smith (Mich.), 73 N.W. 418; Am. Cop. Co. v. Stern (Mich.), 111 N.W. 766; Bartlett v. Railroad (Mass.), 81 N.E. 205; Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 28; Porter v. Purdy, 29 N.Y. 106; Roderingas v. Savings Insurance, 63 N.Y. 464; Hallock v. Dominy, 69 N.Y. 240; O'Connor v. Huggins, 113 N.Y. 517; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423, and cases cited; Ballard v. Thomas & A. (Va.), 19 Gratt. 14; Pulaski Co. v. Stuart B. & Co. (Va.), 28 Gratt. 872; Smith v. Borden (R. I.), 21 A. 351; Watson Co. v. C. Con. Co. (R. I.), 68 A. 311; Fowler v. Brooks (N.H.), 13 A. 418; Bickford v. Bickford (N.H.), 69 A. 581; Fagg v. Clements, 16 Cal. 389; Gregory v. Bovier, 77 Cal. 121; P. L. & T. Co. v. Mercer Co., 170 U.S. 601; Same Case, 42 L.Ed. 1160; Colomia v. Eaves, 92 U.S. 484; Same Case, 23 L.Ed. 579; Town of Venice v. Murdock, 92 U.S. 494; Same Case, 23 L.Ed. 583; Payne v. Moreland, 15 Ohio 436. (5) Judgments, Judicial Findings, Collateral Attack, Direct Attack in equity. Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 116; Lewis v. Williams, 54 Mo. 201; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 273; Payne v. O'Shea, 84 Mo. 133; Murphy v. DeFrance, 101 Mo. 157; Murphy v. DeFrance, 105 Mo. 64; Richardson v. Stowe, 102 Mo. 43; Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 121 Mo. 630; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 116; Moody v. Peyton, 135 Mo. 482; Hamilton v. McLean, 139 Mo. 685; Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 11; Fears v. Riley, 148 Mo. 58; Burnham v. Rogers, 167 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Russell, 131 Mo.App. 638; Burkharth v. Stephens, 117 Mo.App. 433; Mahoney v. Insurance Co. (Iowa), 110 N.W. 1042; U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.E. 93; Hamilton v. McLean, 139 Mo. 685. (6) Only those facts well pleaded, in the return, can be taken as confessed by the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Conclusions of law, as well as matters which cannot be considered, by the court in the disposition of the case, are not admitted, by the motion for judgment, to be true. Chemical Works v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 397; Sidway v. Land Co., 163 Mo. 374; State ex rel. v. Adams, 161 Mo. 362. (7) Plea of estoppel--Pleasant Hill census--local option election--inhabitants of Pleasant Hill voting. R. S. 1899, secs. 3027, 3035; Nichols v. Bank, 55 Mo.App. 91; Dennis v. M. B. of America, 119 Mo.App. 221; Keeney v. McVoy, 206 Mo. 58; Konta v. Stock Exchange, 189 Mo. 38; Harrison v. McReynolds, 183 Mo. 548; Stealey v. K. C., 179 Mo. 407; Bank v. Ragsdale, 171 Mo. 185; DeBerry v. Wheeler, 128 Mo. 90; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 272-5 inc.; Taylor v. Zepp, 14 Mo. 482; School District v. Dorton, 125 Mo. 444; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 567, and cases cited; Stealey v. Kansas City, 179 Mo. 407; Perkinson v. Hoolan, 182 Mo. 193; Railroad v. Van-Horn, 57 N.Y. 476. (8) Local option election void as to Pleasant Hill; and likewise void as to Cass County outside of Pleasant Hill.

J. S. Brierly, Jas. W. Suddath and Chas. W. Sloan for respondents.

(1) The writ of mandamus does not issue as a matter of course, but only in the sound discretion of the court. State ex rel. v. Goodier, 195 Mo. 559; High Extr. Legal Remedies (2 Ed.), sec. 9; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 143; State ex rel. v. Press Assn., 159 Mo. 410; State ex rel. Stifel v. Flad, 26 Mo.App. 500; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 211 Mo. 319, 19 Am. and Eng. Ency. (2 Ed.), 753. (2) It will be denied in doubtful cases, or when it would in a collateral matter decide questions of importance between persons not parties to the proceeding upon whom its enforcement would entail great hardships and difficulties. State ex rel. v. Cottengin, 172 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 610; High on Extr. Rem., sec. 462 (2 Ed.); State v. Express Co. (Minn.), 104 N.W. 556; State v. Beck, 57 P. 935; Wieldwald v. Dodson, 30 P. 580; State v. Board of Comrs. Phillips Co., 26 Kan. 419; People v. Board of Assessors, 131 N.Y. 201. (2) The writ will never be issued to enforce proceedings tainted with fraud or wrong doing. State ex rel. v. Board of Health, 103 Mo. 22; State ex rel. v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 599; Spelling Extr. Relief, sec. 1380. (3) Prima-facie the local option law is in force in Cass county; the burden is cast on relator to show it is not in force in said county; for the purposes of the case the facts of the fraudulent census set up in the return are admitted to be true, and if true, the local option law is in force. The relator then founds his legal right to a mandamus on a fraudulent census. (4) The courts of this State have not hesitated in similar cases to scrutinize closely the facts where the public is interested and allowed great latitude in having the facts inquired into. State ex rel. v. Wilder, 211 Mo. 305; State ex rel. v. Cartwright, 122 Mo.App. 257; White v. Million, 114 Mo.App. 77. (5) The filing of a certified copy of census with the county clerk, as provided by sec. 3028, Revised Statutes 1899, which the statute says "Shall be proof of such fact," could at most only amount to prima-facie evidence. Proof in the sense of the statute is synonymous with evidence. 2 Rapalje and Lawrence Law Dictionary, 1025; Ingles v. Schreiner, 32 A. 131, 58 N. J. Law 120; Githens v. Mount, 44 A. 851, 64 N. J. Law 166; Schloss v. His Creditors, 31 Cal. 201; Perry v. Railroad, 36 Iowa 106; Flowers v. Smith, (Mo.), 112 S.W. 510; State ex rel. v. Hickerson, 130 Mo.App. 55. (6) The census alleged to have been taken by Pleasant Hill was void, for the reason that the ordinance shows that it authorized by section 4 "a complete summary of the names and sex of all persons within the limits of said city of Pleasant Hill;" whereas by section 3028, Revised Statutes 1899, only a census of the "inhabitants of such town" could be taken. (7) This court may inquire into the fraudulent census of Pleasant Hill. State ex rel. v. Wilder, 211 Mo. 305; State ex rel. v. Cartwright, 122 Mo.App. 257; Haynes v. County Court et al., ___ Mo.App. ___; Kehr v. Columbia et al., ___ Mo.App. ___.

OPINION

ELLISON, J.

This is an original application in this court for a writ of mandamus against the county court of Cass county requiring it to issue to relator a license to keep a dramshop in Harrisonville, a town in Cass county, which the court has refused to grant. It is conceded by the pleadings that the relator is a proper party to receive a license and that every requirement has been met as a prerequisite to a license and that a license should issue to him unless the county court is prevented from so doing by an election held in Cass county just prior to relator's application, which resulted in the adoption of what is commonly known as the...