State v. Hedrick
Decision Date | 03 April 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 23106.,23106. |
Citation | 294 Mo. 21,241 S.W. 402 |
Parties | STATE ex inf. BARRETT, Atty. Gen., ex rel. BRADSHAW v. HEDRICK. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Frank H. Farris, of Rolla, and John I. Williamson, of Kansas City, for relator. John H. Lucas and Beardsley & Beardsley, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto by the Attorney General, on the relation of James T. Bradshaw, charging that the respondent usurped, intruded into, and unlawfully holds the office of warehouse commissioner, and praying judgment of ouster against the respondent. Respondent waived the issue of the writ, entered his appearance in this action, and filed his return, in which he pleads the action of the Governor removing relator from office and his appointment, confirmation, and qualification. Relator filed his reply, pleading that section 5995, R. S. 1919, under which he was removed by the Governor, is violative of the Constitution in several respects, and that he was not afforded a hearing as required by that section, so that his removal amounted to a denial of due process of law.
The case was submitted upon the following stipulation:
1. It is admitted that the notice given by the Governor of Missouri, to said Bradshaw, notifying him of the time and place when certain charges against him would be heard, was as follows:
2. It is admitted that the charges preferred by the Governor against said Bradshaw are as follows:
3. It is admitted that at all times in the pleadings mentioned, both relator, Bradshaw, and respondent, Hedrick, possessed all of the qualifications required by law to render each of them elligible to appointment to the office of warehouse commissioner of the state of Missouri, and each of them is still so eligible; that said Bradshaw was on the ___ day of April, 1919. duly appointed to said office for a term of four years and was thereafter duly confirmed and accepted said appointment and took possession of said office and so remained until said Hedrick took possession of said office on or about June 15, 1921; that on or about June 15, 1921, the Governor of Missouri, did appoint said Hedrick to said office and said Hedrick was thereafter confirmed by the Missouri senate and took possession of said office and has ever since remained in possession thereof; that since said Hedrick took possession of said office, said Bradshaw has demanded of him that he surrender the possession thereof to said Bradshaw, but that said Hedrick declined to do so.
4. It is admitted that the hearing on said charges against said Bradshaw was had before the Governor of Missouri, beginning at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of Saturday, the 11th day of June, 1921, and that the same was continued until about 2 o'clock on the morning of Sunday, June 12, 1921.
That during the hearing (the witness Bradshaw being then upon the stand) the following occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Utah State Fair Ass'n v. Green
... ... Brown, 54 Tex ... 330; State v. Ranson, 73 Mo. 78; Hoke v ... Commonwealth, 79 Ky. 567; Commonwealth v ... Bailey, 81 Ky. 395; State v. Slover, 134 Mo ... 10; People v. Backus, 11 A.D. 147; State v ... Nomland, 5 N.D. 427, 44 A. S. R. 572; State v ... Hedrick, 241 S.W. 402, 409; Rogers v. Morrill, ... (Wash.) 42 P. 355; People v. Richardson, ... (Calif.) 65 P. 325; Koppala v. State, (Wyo.) 89 ... P. 576; Vreeland v. Pearson (N.Y.) 57 A. 151; ... Devery v. Coler, (N.Y.) 65 N.E. 956; Sweet v ... City of Syracuse, 14 N.Y.S. 421; ... ...
-
State ex rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis
...does not violate Section 53 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 447; Hunt v. Bell, 190 Mo. 70; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 279; State v. Keating, 202 Mo. 197; State ex rel. v. Speed, 183 Mo. 186. (g) It does not vio......
-
Ex Parte Lockhart
...ordinance must stand. If there is no reasonable basis for the classification, the law must fall. State ex inf. Barrett, Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21, 241 S.W. 402; State ex rel. Daily Record Co. v. Hartmann et al., 299 Mo. 410, 253 S.W. 991. "Whether the ordinance is a police regulatio......
-
Borden Co. v. Thomason
...person that can be brought within its predicament becomes subject to its operation." (Italics ours.) State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21, 241 S.W. 402, 407; Budd v. Hancock, 66 N.J.L. 133, 135, 48 A. 1023, The principle is perhaps best illustrated in the case of Ci......