State ex rel. York v. Locker
Decision Date | 22 December 1915 |
Parties | THE STATE ex rel. CHARLES M. YORK, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney of Schuyler County, v. J. S. LOCKER, Judge of Probate Court |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ granted.
Walter Higbee and Charles M. York for relator; Higbee & Mills of counsel.
(1) The probate court or the judge thereof has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Secs. 1 and 34, art. 6 Constitution; State ex rel. v. Tincher, 258 Mo. 15; State ex rel. v. Woodson, 161 Mo. 444; Johnson v. Railroad, 259 Mo. 544; Turner v. Anderson, 236 Mo. 529; State ex rel. v. Nast, 209 Mo. 719; 11 Cyc. 706, c; Harding v. State, 126 S.W. 91 (Ark) ; Finn v. Walsh, 121 N.W. (N. D.) 766, syl. 3. (2) The judge of the circuit court of Scotland, where petitioners were confined, had exclusive jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas, there being no allegation in the petition that he was absent from the county. Sec. 2509, R. S. 1909; Ex parte Gaume, 162 Mo. 390; Ex parte Shoffner, 173 Mo.App. 403.
Fogle & Fogle for respondent.
(1) The probate court or judge in vacation had jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Sec. 2441, R. S. 1909; State v. Millsaps, 69 Mo. 359; State ex rel. v Tincher, 258 Mo. 19; State v. Wilson, 175 S.W 603. (2) Certiorari will lie from the Supreme Court to review the proceedings in a habeas corpus case pending the circuit court, and before those proceedings have culminated in a trial, order or judgment; and to inquire into an absence excess or abuse of jurisdiction. State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 569. (3) Prohibition being an extraordinary writ cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies provided by law, such as certiorari or other modes of review, are available. Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252; State v. Klein, 116 Mo. 259; State v. Bowerman, 40 Mo.App. 576; Delaney v. Police Court, 167 Mo. 679. (4) Application for the writ of prohibition is premature until exception has been taken to the jurisdiction of the lower court and overruled and will be refused if this has not been done, for it is invariably presumed that courts will give to parties the relief to which they show themselves entitled. State v. Gill, 137 Mo. 681; State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14; State v. Fox, 85 Mo. 61; State v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1; State v. Anthony, 65 Mo.App. 543.
OPINIONIn Banc.
Prohibition.
-- To give the respondent the benefit of all doubt, we adopt the statement of facts presented here by his able counsel. In the view that we now have, and long since have had, of the law, this statement of facts will suffice. It reads:
It should be added that as one ground for the application to this court for the writ of prohibition, it is charged that the probate courts of the State are without constitutional authority to issue writs of habeas corpus, and that therefore sections 2441 and 2442, Revised Statutes 1909, which purport to grant such authority are unconstitutional and void. In our judgment this contention is well founded, as we shall attempt to demonstrate, in the opinion to follow. Other grounds are urged, but if this be good, then the discussion of the others would be mere superfluity. This sufficiently states the case.
I. The question here involved is an interesting one. I first became interested in it in the course of my early practice. That sections 2441 and 2442, Revised Statutes 1909, grant to probate courts as courts of record, the power to grant writs of habeas corpus must be conceded. We have also statutes authorizing a probate court to grant a temporary injunction. [R. S. 1909, secs. 2512 and 2513.] In a series of cases of the Rich Hill Coal Mining Co. versus divers parties, temporary writs of injunction were granted by the probate court of Bates county and the cases certified to the circuit court of said county for trial upon the question of a permanent injunction. These temporary writs were prepared by the local counsel for such Mining Company. In the circuit we moved to quash the preliminary injunctions on the sole ground that the probate court had no constitutional power to issue such a writ, and Hon. James H. Lay, then the circuit judge of the 29th circuit, sustained said motion. From that time on I have heard of no temporary injunction being granted by probate courts in that circuit. The question there involved is the question here involved. It is the simple question as to whether or not the Legislature can give to a court a power not contemplated by the constitutional provisions fixing the powers of such court.
It is a general rule that the Legislature can neither add to nor subtract from the constitutional powers of a court. In 11 Cyc. 706, it is said:
"The provisions of the Constitution may be such as to operate as an express restriction or limitation upon legislative authority in respect to matters of the character under consideration, and it is a general rule that the Legislature is powerless to interfere with the jurisdiction, functions, or judicial powers conferred by the Constitution upon a court, nor can it diminish, enlarge, transfer, or otherwise infringe upon the same, nor abolish, reorganize, divide, or consolidate such constitutional courts or judicial districts, especially so where the court has long been acquiesced in as permanent."
In State ex rel. Cave v. Tincher, 258 Mo. l. c. 1, 166 S.W. 1028, Walker, J., said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oren v. Swift & Co.
...IV, Const. Mo. 1875; 15 C. J. sec. 27, p. 732; Bors v. Preston, 28 L.Ed. 419, 111 U.S. 252; State v. Ellis, 28 S.W.2d 365; State ex rel. v. Locker, 266 Mo. 384; State rel. Barrett v. May, 290 Mo. 302; 15 C. J. sec. 35; State ex rel. v. Nast, 209 Mo. 720; 7 R. C. L. secs. 70, 80; Constitutio......
-
The State ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Harty
... ... or enter an order revoking the license, the effect would be ... the same. Lusk v. Atkinson, 268 Mo. 109; State ... ex rel. York v. Locker, 266 Mo. 384; State ex rel ... v. Public Service Commission, 259 Mo. 704; Ocampo v ... United States, 234 U.S. 91; People ex rel ... ...
-
In re Conner
... ... Law, sec. 758, pp. 1167-1169; State ex rel. Clark v ... Shain, 343 Mo. 522, 122 S.W.2d 882; 21 C.J.S., sec ... Neat, 346 Mo ... 86, 139 S.W.2d 958; State ex rel. York v. Locker, ... 266 Mo. 384, 181 S.W. 19; State ex rel. Cove v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Knisely v. Holtcamp
... ... U.S. 653, 37 L.Ed. 1211, 14 S.Ct. 221, issued a mandamus, ... directing the United States Circuit Court of the Southern ... District of New York to take jurisdiction of and proceed with ... the trial of a case, in which the circuit court had set aside ... and quashed the service and ... ...