State v. Coon, No. 27367.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtRagland
PartiesSTATE ex rel. KANSAS CITY v. COON et al., Judges.
Docket NumberNo. 27367.
Decision Date30 December 1926
296 S.W. 90
STATE ex rel. KANSAS CITY
v.
COON et al., Judges.
No. 27367.
Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.
December 30, 1926.
Motion for Rehearing Denied February 15, 1927.

Original prohibition by the State of Missouri, on the relation of Kansas City, against Fred W. Coon and others, Judges of the Circuit Court of Jackaon County. Provisional rule discharged, and proceedings dismissed.

John T. Barker, City Counselor, E. F. Halstead, Marcy K. Brown, Jr., and Wm. H. Allen, all of Kansas City, for relator.

John I. Williamson, John G. Park, and Darius A. Brown, all of Kansas City, for respondents.

RAGLAND, J.


This is an original proceeding in prohibition. The pleadings in the case, the petition, return, and reply disclose the following facts:

On or about June 11, 1923, one Dee Pickett filed in the circuit court of Jackson county a petition in mandamus entitled:

"State of Missouri, at the Relation of Dee Pickett, Relator, v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, William Buchholz, George H. Edwards, and Hughes Bryant, as Members of the Board of Fire and Water Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, James B. Shoemaker, as Assessor and Collector of Water Rates, Clarence I. Spellman, J. S. Adsit, and Irving Smith, as Members of the Board of Civil Service, George E. Kimball, as City Comptroller, Ben Jaudon, as City Treasurer, Eugene H. Blake, as City Auditor, and Albert I. Beach, as Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendants. No. 188979."

The petition as subsequently amended omiting caption and signature, was as follows:

"(1) The petition of Dee Pickett respectfully represents that he is now and for many years last past has been a citizen and resident of Kansas City, Jackson county, Mo.; that defendant, Kansas City, was and is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing according to the laws of Missouri, and having a special charter adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of Missouri; that defendants have for some time been and still are the duly appointed (or elected), qualified, and acting members of administrative boards created by the charter and ordinances thereof or officers of said city as classified in the caption.

"(2) Ordinance of Kansas City, numbered 6619, approved October 17, 1910, entitled `An ordinance concurring in and approving a general schedule of the number, grade, and compensation of the officers, agents, and employees of the water department,' approved a resolution of said board of fire and water commissioners, which, among other things, provided for the position of mail clerk at a salary of $1,140 per annum; ordinance No. 29845, approved June 19, 1917, entitled as aforesaid, provided for the position of general clerk at a salary of $1,200 per annum; by ordinance 32569, approved March 19, 1918, said salary was increased to $1,440 per annum; and by ordinance numbered 33235, approved June 18, 1918, entitled as aforesaid, said salary was increased to $1,500 per annum. Said compensation was by ordinance No. 38228, approved July 16, 1923, entitled as aforesaid, increased to $1,620, and by ordinance No. 45535, approved May 26, 1923, entitled as aforesaid, to $1,800 per annum. Said positions according to the provisions and requirements of said article 15 of the city charter were and are in the competitive class

296 S.W. 91

of the city's service; that section 10 of said article 15 of the city charter, provided, among other things, `No person in the city service shall be removed, reduced in grade or salary, or transferred because of political or religious beliefs or opinions of such person; nor shall any person in the competitive class of the city's service be removed, reduced in grade or salary, or transferred without first having received a written statement setting forth in detail the reasons therefor.'

"(3) On or about March 15, 1911, the board of civil service, pursuant to and in conformity with said article 15 of the Charter of Kansas City and the rules and regulations of said board, held an examination for the position of mail clerk; relator appeared and underwent said examination and received a rating by said board of civil service of 80.05 per cent.; that thereafter on or about March 24, 1911, said board of civil service notified your petitioner that he had received said rating and that same entitled him to second place on the eligible list for said position. In response to requisition from the then assessor and collector of water rates on or about July 20, 1920 (1911?), said board of civil service certified relator's name to the then appointed, qualified, and acting assessor and collector of water rates for appointment to said position. That on or about July 20, 1920 (1911?), the then assessor and collector of water rates appointed relator to said position, and relator immediately entered upon the performance of the duties thereof and continued to perform said duties and receive the salary provided therefor until on or about October 1, 1914.

"On October 1, 1914, relator was promoted to the position of meter ledger clerk, collection division, at said salary of $1,200, in which position he served until June 27, 1917, when in accordance with charter and the regulations of the board of civil service he was transferred to the position of general clerk, collection division, in which position he served until on or about August 15, 1918.

"That said salary was paid to relator in semimonthly installments in the following manner: The name of relator and the amount of his salary for one-half month with those of other officers and employees of said department was placed upon a pay roll prepared and certified by or under the direction of the said board and the assessor and collector, whereupon said pay roll, together with a requisition prepared by or under the direction of said board and said assessor and collector, was delivered to the city auditor of Kansas City, requiring him to draw warrants on the city treasurer of said city in payment of the said salaries, was presented by or under the direction of said board and said assessor and collector to the comptroller of said city, who, after procuring the indorsement upon said pay roll of the board of civil service of Kansas City, Mo., presented same to the city auditor, who in accordance with said requisition drew his warrants on the city treasurer to the several persons and for the several amounts named in said pay roll, said comptroller then countersigned said warrants and registered them in his office and delivered them to the city auditor, who delivered them to the persons named therein; said warrants were then presented to and paid by the city treasurer to the proper holders thereof.

"(4) On or about August 15. 1918, while relator was in lawful and peaceable possession of said position and employment, and while faithfully discharging the duties thereof, the then assessor and collector without first having delivered to relator a written statement setting forth in detail the reason therefor, without giving relator a hearing or any opportunity to be heard, attempted to discharge relator from his said position of general clerk, collection division, and notified relator that he was removed therefrom, to take effect on August 15, 1918. That said officer, shortly thereafter assuming to appoint a successor to your relator, unlawfully placed another person in charge of said position or employment, and has ever since excluded relator from his said position or employment, and has refused to allow him to perform the duties thereof, and that each and all of the other defendants and their predecessors have refused and still refuse to recognize relator as general clerk, collection division, or to allow relator's name to be placed upon the pay roll or to take any steps leading to the payment of relator's salary or any part thereof, and that relator has received no part of his salary after August 15, 1918.

"(5) The said attempt to discharge and exclude relator from his position was in direct violation of the express provisions of the charter of Kansas City and the law of the state of Missouri in this, to wit, that relator was never furnished by any officer, agent, or employee of the city with a written statement setting forth in detail the reason for the said attempted discharge, and relator was attempted to be removed and discharged because of political beliefs or opinions, and without giving to relator any hearing or opportunity to be heard, touching the right or power to remove or his faithfulness or unfaithfulness in the service.

"(6) Notwithstanding said attempted removal, relator still is the duly and legally appointed and qualified general clerk, collection division, and legally entitled to perform the duties thereof and receive the salary therefor.

"(7) Immediately after notice of said attempted removal relator demanded of the said assessor and collector that relator be immediately reinstated and recognized as general clerk, collection division, and prior to institution of proceedings caused to be served upon all defendants or their predecessors in office a demand for restoration to said position, and for the relief herein prayed, but defendants and their predecessors have refused to take any steps to restore relator to his position or afford the relief prayed, although he was clearly entitled thereto.

"Wherefore relator prays that this court award a writ of mandamus commanding defendants, the members of the board of fire and water commissioners of Kansas City, Mo., or their successors, and defendant, the assessor and collector of water rates, of Kansas City, Mo., or his successor, without further excuse or delay, to restore relator to said position and reinstate relator's name upon the pay roll of water department from and after the date of said unlawful discharge, to wit, August 15, 1918, until relator shall have been actually restored to said position, and certify the same to the city...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...with any provisions of the State or Federal Constitution with regard to due process or property rights. State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 296 S.W. 90, 316 Mo. 542; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 549, 44 L. Ed. 1200; Guillermo Alvarez Y Sanchez v. United States, 216 U.S. 167, 56 L. Ed. 435. (7......
  • State ex rel. Gallagher v. Kansas City, No. 28663.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 4, 1928
    ...stated therein, but for the additional reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion filed in State ex rel. v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 545, 296 S.W. 90, 98, principal among which is the conclusion that the petition in the instant, as in the Coon case, states no cause of action. The petition in eac......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Kirby, No. 37925.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 25, 1942
    ...310 Mo. 542, 276 S.W. 389; State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair, 333 Mo. 1, 63 S.W. (2d) 64; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 296 S.W. 90; Motley v. Callaway County, 149 S.W. (2d) 875. Furthermore, the right to be appointed to or employed in a public office or employment is not a......
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. Trimble, No. 29012.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 27, 1929
    ...261 S.W. 112; State ex rel. Hamilton v. Kansas City, 303 Mo. 50, 259 S.W. 1045, l.c. 1052; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 296 S.W. 90, l.c. While we held in quashing the former opinion of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff was not entitled to restoration to office or to sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...with any provisions of the State or Federal Constitution with regard to due process or property rights. State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 296 S.W. 90, 316 Mo. 542; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 549, 44 L. Ed. 1200; Guillermo Alvarez Y Sanchez v. United States, 216 U.S. 167, 56 L. Ed. 435. (7......
  • State ex rel. Gallagher v. Kansas City, No. 28663.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 4, 1928
    ...stated therein, but for the additional reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion filed in State ex rel. v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 545, 296 S.W. 90, 98, principal among which is the conclusion that the petition in the instant, as in the Coon case, states no cause of action. The petition in eac......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Kirby, No. 37925.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 25, 1942
    ...310 Mo. 542, 276 S.W. 389; State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair, 333 Mo. 1, 63 S.W. (2d) 64; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 296 S.W. 90; Motley v. Callaway County, 149 S.W. (2d) 875. Furthermore, the right to be appointed to or employed in a public office or employment is not a......
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. Trimble, No. 29012.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 27, 1929
    ...261 S.W. 112; State ex rel. Hamilton v. Kansas City, 303 Mo. 50, 259 S.W. 1045, l.c. 1052; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Coon, 316 Mo. 524, 296 S.W. 90, l.c. While we held in quashing the former opinion of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff was not entitled to restoration to office or to sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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