State v. Caulfield

• Citation: 245 Mo. 676,150 S.W. 1047
• Parties: STATE ex rel. JOHNSTON v. CAULFIELD et al., Judges.
• Decision Date: 14 November 1912
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

150 S.W. 1047

245 Mo. 676

STATE ex rel. JOHNSTON v. CAULFIELD et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 14, 1912.

PROHIBITION (§ 10)—GROUNDS—JURISDITION—PROBATE COURT.

Where the jurisdiction of a probate court is dependent upon the fact of a person being within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, prohibition will not lie to prevent that court from investigating such fact.

In Banc. Prohibition by the State, on the relation of May C. Johnston, against Henry S. Caulfield and others, as judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Writ issued.

T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., and Henry Rowe, all of St. Louis, for relator.

GRAVES, J.

Original action in prohibition, in which a preliminary rule was ordered against respondents, the judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Our rule to show cause was duly served, but the respondents have failed to make any return thereto. The case made by the application to this court thus runs: On July 22, 1912, there was filed in the probate court of St. Louis, over which Hon. Robert L. Shackelford presides, the following document: "To the Honorable Probate Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri. The undersigned, May C. Johnston, wife of Rowland L. Johnston, hereby gives information and alleges the fact to be, that one Rowland L. Johnston, of the county of St. Louis, aforesaid, is a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs, and prays that an inquiry thereinto be had, according to the statutes in such cases made and provided. Informant further states that said Rowland L. Johnston is the owner of property of the value of about *1000.-00." This was duly verified by the said May C. Johnston in an affidavit thereunto attached. On the 22d day of July, 1912, one George B. Webster, purporting to act for the said Rowland L. Johnston, applied to the respondents herein, as judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in vacation, for a writ of prohibition against the said Robert L. Shackelford, as judge of the probate court of St. Louis county, in which application it was charged that the said probate court was going to hear the application of the said May C. Johnston. It was further charged that the said Rowland L. Johnston was not a resident of St. Louis county, but a resident of the city of St. Louis. Respondents issued a preliminary rule against the said Shackelford, in which they stayed the hand of that court until respondents could finally hear the case, and citing the said Shackelford to show why their said preliminary rule should not be made permanent. to this juncture, on July 24, 1912, the relator, May C. Johnston, applied to this court for a writ of prohibition against the respondents, and our preliminary rule in prohibition was issued as first above indicated. From the record it appears clearly that there were rapid, moves on the checker board in this case. The complaint of May C. Johnston had no more than been lodged with the probate court before its hand was stayed by the rule of respondents.

Such being the facts, were respondents transcending their bounds in issuing their writ? We think so, and for reasons clearly apparent, and which no doubt become apparent to our learned brothers of the ...