State v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 193 S.W. 932
• Decision Date: 02 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 12119.,12119.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Parties: STATE on inf. of MAY, Pros. Atty., v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.

193 S.W. 932

STATE on inf. of MAY, Pros. Atty., v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.

No. 12119.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 2, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mercer County; George W. Wanamaker, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by State of Missouri, on information of Lucien E. May, Prosecuting Attorney of Mercer County, Mo., against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and others. From a denial of his motion that he be made a party defendant, Tod V. Ashcroft appeals. Affirmed.

Eldon C. Orton, of Princeton, for appellant. Lucien E. May, of Princeton, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

As the result of petition filed by the prosecuting attorney of Mercer county, Mo., the court below enjoined the defendants railway and its receiver, Dickenson, "from making any delivery of any shipments of intoxicating liquors, or any beverage containing alcohol, to any consignee or to any person whatsoever within the limits of Mercer county, Mo." This judgment was entered against said defendants by default upon the first day of the return term of the summons, but thereafter, and on said date, one Tod V. Ashcroft, who, if he has done nothing more, has at least succeeded in having himself styled on the papers in this case a defendant in the cause, filed a motion asking that he be made a party defendant therein. His motion was denied.

From the record it seems that Ashcroft's reason for desiring to get tangled up in this litigation was that he was very apprehensive that his supply of beer would either be diminished or entirely cut off by the action of the court taken against the railroad. Although he has filed a brief in this court, he has cited no case showing that there is any law permitting him to make himself a party in a case of this kind at any time, much less after the judgment has been rendered against the real defendants. We are at a loss to know what case he stands on unless it is one of his beer cases, but by reason of the fact that our customs, habits, and practices do not at any time take us anywhere near any beer cases, the case that appellant apparently stands upon cannot very well be adopted or approved by us.

It will be noted that the railroad company is not complaining that judgment was rendered against it prematurely, but we assume from appellant's brief that when one's liquor is at stake that this would make no difference, and that under such pressing circumstances, if appellant did not have the privilege...