State v. Burney, No. 20016.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtFaris
Citation191 S.W. 981,269 Mo. 602
Docket NumberNo. 20016.
Decision Date29 January 1917
PartiesSTATE ex rel. MURPHY v. BURNEY, Circuit Judge, et al.
191 S.W. 981
269 Mo. 602
STATE ex rel. MURPHY
v.
BURNEY, Circuit Judge, et al.
No. 20016.
Supreme Court of Missouri. In Banc.
January 29, 1917.

Original proceeding in prohibition by the State, on the relation of David A. Murphy, a member of the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, Mo., against Clarence A. Burney, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mo., Division No. 6, and others. Provisional writ made absolute.

I. N. Watson and John T. Harding, both of Kansas City, for relator. Robinson & Goodrich, Frederick E. Stivers, and James E. Goodrich, all of Kansas City, for respondents.

FARIS, J.


This is an original proceeding in prohibition against respondent Clarence A. Burney, as one of the judges of the circuit court of Jackson county, to prohibit him from taking further cognizance of certain suits by injunction brought by respondents Hiram W. Hammil and R. L. James, the object of which latter proceedings was to enjoin relator (who is one of the police commissioners of Kansas City) from sitting in the hearing of certain charges pending against said Hammil and said James before said commissioners.

As forecast above, respondents Hammil and James are members of the police force of Kansas City; Hammil being chief of police, and James a captain of police therein. Prior to the commencement before respondent Burney of the injunction proceedings, certain charges were filed by relator David A. Murphy in his capacity as a member of the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, against respondents Hammil and James, which charges involved the official conduct of said last-named respondents as chief of police and captain, respectively. While separate actions were brought by Hammil and James seeking to enjoin relator as aforesaid, it is not necessary to cumber the record with the allegations in both of these injunction proceedings. That brought by respondent Hammil, we take it, is a fair type of both, and it contains, after the formal allegations of the official character of plaintiff therein as chief of police and defendant as commissioners of police, respectively, the below allegations, to wit:

"Defendant has caused to be prepared and filed with the board of police commissioners aforesaid, complaints against plaintiff charging him with conduct unbecoming an officer of the police department, and has caused said complaints to be set for hearing before said board of police commissioners at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of Wednesday, December 6, 1916; and defendant threatens to and will, unless restrained by this court, take part as a member of said board of police commissioners in hearing and deciding said complaint, at such time as they may be called up for hearing before said board.

"Some weeks ago defendant wrongfully, fraudulently, oppressively, and wickedly conspired and confederated with one John P. Mullane and others, all of whose names he is now unable to state, to cause the dismissal and removal of plaintiff from his said position and office as chief of police of said police department, and as part and parcel of said conspiracy said complaints were prepared by said Murphy in his own handwriting, but said Murphy fraudulently, wickedly, and oppressively used his position as said commissioner to coerce and force a probationary patrolment of said city to sign charges to be preferred against plaintiff, so that the true attitude and connection of defendant therewith might be concealed."

The actions for injunctions filed, respectively, by respondents Hammil and James, coming on to be heard before Judge Burney on December 6, 1916, he issued thereon a temporary restraining order and fixed December 9, 1916, for hearing the application for the issuance of a temporary injunction. Pending the hearing upon such injunction, relator presented his petition to this court, and we issued thereon a provisional writ of prohibition, directed to Judge Burney, prohibiting him, till our further order, from hearing or proceeding further in said injunction suits. Thereafter Judge Burney filed herein his return, following which relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The case has been briefed, and being a matter wherein both parties deem that the public interests require a speedy determination, it was submitted to us without argument, an order entered herein making our provisional writ absolute, and the matter of filing a written opinion deferred till a more convenient season.

The sole proposition involved is whether relator Murphy, who caused to be filed the charges against respondents Hammil and James, is, for that he caused the filing of such charges, disqualified from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...S.W. (2d) 591; Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Chalnda v. St. L. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W. 981; Seegers v. Marx-Haas Co., 334 Mo. 632, 66 S.W. (2d) 526; Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W. (2d) 693; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. ......
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...with judicial authority. The act complained of was an administrative, not a judicial act. In State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 268 Mo. 302, 191 S. W. 981, we held that the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, in hearing complaints lodged against policemen for misconduct, does not sit......
  • State ex rel. Hog Haven Farms v. Pearcy, No. 30267.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 29, 1931
    ...on the ground that the contractor with the city has in the past or will in the future maintain a nuisance. State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602. (5) The disposal of garbage by the city is a governmental function, which may not be enjoined by the courts at the suit of private persons.......
3 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...S.W. (2d) 591; Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Chalnda v. St. L. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W. 981; Seegers v. Marx-Haas Co., 334 Mo. 632, 66 S.W. (2d) 526; Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W. (2d) 693; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. ......
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 3, 1922
    ...with judicial authority. The act complained of was an administrative, not a judicial act. In State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 268 Mo. 302, 191 S. W. 981, we held that the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, in hearing complaints lodged against policemen for misconduct, does not sit......
  • State ex rel. Hog Haven Farms v. Pearcy, No. 30267.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 29, 1931
    ...on the ground that the contractor with the city has in the past or will in the future maintain a nuisance. State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602. (5) The disposal of garbage by the city is a governmental function, which may not be enjoined by the courts at the suit of private persons.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT