State v. Carlisle

• Citation: 138 S.W. 513,235 Mo. 251
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MAJOR, Atty. Gen., v. CARLISLE.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1911
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

138 S.W. 513

235 Mo. 251

STATE ex rel. MAJOR, Atty. Gen., v. CARLISLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 7, 1911.

1. INSPECTION (§ 2)—HAY INSPECTION—AUTHORITY—RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION.

The hay inspection act (Rev. St. 1909, §§ 6832, 6833) was passed as an amendment to the general grain inspection law, and provided by the first section that the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners should "supervise" the inspection of hay. The second section provides that the board shall make rules and regulations for the enforcement of the preceding section, but nowhere required the inspection itself. Held, that the board was given no power to enforce an inspection.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 62)—DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE POWER.

Rev. St. 1909, §§ 6832, 6833, requiring the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners to supervise the inspection of hay and to make rules for such inspection, if construed to authorize the board to determine the points where hay shall be inspected, is invalid as delegating to the board an exercise of the police power of the state.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.

Action by the State, at the information and on the relation of Elliott W. Major, Attorney General, against Charles D. Carlisle, doing business under the name and style of the Carlisle Commission Company. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action by the state, at the information and upon the relation of the Attorney General, to recover from the respondent the sum of $5,031.50, fees for inspecting 10,063 cars of hay in Kansas City, Mo., consigned to respondent, at the rate of 50 cents a car, the fee established by the rules and regulations of the Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, pursuant to the act of the Legislature of 1905 (Session Acts 1905, p. 171, now sections 6832 and 6833, R. S. 1909), as follows:

"Sec. 6832. The Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners is required to supervise the inspection and the weighing of all hay at points within this state, for storage or sale, where state grain inspection or state hay inspection has been established or may hereafter be established by said commissioners.

"Sec. 6833. The Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners are hereby empowered to prescribe such rules and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of the preceding section as will as nearly as possible conform to the requirements of law now in force regarding the state inspection and weighing of grain, requiring such a bond of inspectors and weighers of hay for the faithful performance of duty as in the judgment of said commissioners is sufficient, and prescribing such fees for inspection and weighing of hay as shall be reasonable. The penalties now provided by this article for a failure to comply with the law regarding state grain inspection shall also apply to hay inspection as by the preceding section required."

The petition filed by the Attorney General states: "Defendant is and was at all dates herein mentioned engaged in the business of buying and selling hay in Kansas City, Mo., under the name and style of Carlisle Commission Company. John W. Knott, Frank A. Wightman, and Rube Oglesby are and were at the dates herein mentioned the duly elected and qualified members of the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners of the state of Missouri. Prior to the passage and approval of the act of the Legislature (Session Laws 1905, at page 171), said board had designated Kansas City, St. Joseph and Kansas City as places where grain should be inspected, and for a long time prior thereto it had been the custom and practice of said board to inspect grain by its appointees, in cars, outside of warehouses, as the cars arrived to be delivered to consignees. That said board, in pursuance of the powers to them given by the statutes of Missouri in such cases made and provided, formulated and made proper rules and regulations for the inspection of hay and in such rules and regulations fixed the charge for the inspection of hay at Kansas City at the price of fifty cents ($.50) per car; that said board further, in pursuance of the powers vested in it by the laws of the state of Missouri, appointed a chief inspector, deputy chief inspectors, and the assistant inspectors for the inspection of hay at Kansas City and other points throughout the state of Missouri, and in pursuance of said rules and regulations formulated by said board, as aforesaid, said inspectors inspected from November, 1905, to and including March, 1909, ten thousand and sixty-three (10,063) cars of hay consigned to defendant at Kansas City, a particular description of which said cars appears from a schedule hereto annexed, marked `Exhibit A,' and made a part hereof. The charge for the inspection of said hay as fixed by said Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners were and are reasonable, just, and legal. Payment of said inspection charges has been demanded from defendant by plaintiff, and payment refused. Wherefore, plaintiff asks judgment for the sum of five thousand thirty-one dollars and fifty cents ($5,031.50), together with interest and costs."

To this petition respondent demurred on the following grounds: "First. That this court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this action, in that the statutes under which this action is brought are unconstitutional and void as delegating power unto the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, contrary to the provisions of section 1, article 4, Constitution of Missouri. Second. That the petition filed herein by plaintiff does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant." The demurrer was sustained, and, after due proceedings, the cause comes here upon the state's appeal.

Respondent urges two propositions: (1) That section 6832, R. S. 1909, is unconstitutional and void as a delegation of legislative power; (2) that the petition fails to state a cause of action, in that it fails to allege that the hay inspected was going into or out of a public warehouse. The appellant says nothing upon the contention that the hay inspection act is void. Upon the contention that the act applies only to hay in public warehouses, the appellant insists that the act of 1905 contains "the plain legislative intent to provide for the inspection of hay generally, without any limitation or qualification whatever." It is stated in appellant's brief that the trial court sustained the demurrer on the...