State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtHigbee
Citation294 Mo. 21,241 S.W. 402
PartiesSTATE ex inf. BARRETT, Atty. Gen., ex rel. BRADSHAW v. HEDRICK.
Decision Date03 April 1922
Docket NumberNo. 23106.
241 S.W. 402
294 Mo. 21
STATE ex inf. BARRETT, Atty. Gen., ex rel. BRADSHAW
v.
HEDRICK.
No. 23106.
Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.
April 3, 1922.
Motion for Rehearing Denied April 29, 1922.

[241 S.W. 404]

Original information in the nature of quo warranto by the State, on information of Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney General, and on relation of James T. Bradshaw, against Thomas J. Hedrick, to oust the respondent from the office of warehouse commissioner. Writ of ouster denied.

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.

HIGBEE, J.


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:

"Notice.

"Honorable James T. Bradshaw, Warehouse Commissioner of Missouri, Jefferson City, Missouri—Dear Sir: Take notice that by virtue of authority conferred upon me by section 5995, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919, and for the purpose of removing you from the office of warehouse commissioner, I, Arthur M. Hyde, Governor of Missouri, have made charges of inefficiency, neglect of duty, and misconduct in office against you as such warehouse commissioner, a copy of which charges are hereto attached and made a part of this notice.

"You are hereby given notice that on the 11th day of June, 1921, at the office of the Governor, in the city of Jefferson, at the hour of ten o'clock a. m. you may appear in person or by counsel to be publicly heard to make defense, if any defense you have, against the said charges of inefficiency, neglect of duty and misconduct in office. You will govern yourself accordingly.

"Given under my hand at the office of the Governor, in the city of Jefferson, this 28th day of May, 1921. Arthur M. Hyde, Governor."

2. It is admitted that the charges preferred by the Governor against said Bradshaw are as follows:

"Charges.

"To the Secretary of State, Jefferson City, Missouri—Sir: I, Arthur M. Hyde, Governor of Missouri, by virtue of authority vested in me by section 5995, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1919, and for the purpose of removing from the office of warehouse commissioner of Missouri, Honorable James T. Bradshaw, now incumbent thereof, do hereby charge that the said James T. Bradshaw, warehouse commissioner of Missouri, has been guilty of inefficiency, neglect of duty, and misconduct of office, in the following respects and particulars:

"(1) That, notwithstanding the said Bradshaw was, by the state auditor and the Supreme Court denied recovery out of the state treasury of the sum of $157.40 for traveling expenses outside of the state of Missouri, he

241 S.W. 405

nevertheless charged the same item and amount to the private inspection fund, the surplus of which was, and is, due the state of Missouri. Book 1, page 43, check 124, Record of Private Inspection Fund.

"(2) That notwithstanding the said Bradshaw was, by the state auditor refused recovery out of the state treasury of the sum of $65.44 for a trip to Minnesota, he nevertheless charged said item to the private inspection fund above mentioned. Book 1, page 65, check 330, Record of Private Inspection Fund.

"(3) That, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the expense of trips outside the state were not proper charges against the state, nevertheless the said Bradshaw did on October 20, 1920, charge said private inspection fund and receive therefrom the sum of $103.34 for a trip to Minneapolis. Book 1, page 173, Record of Private Inspection Fund.

"(4) That, notwithstanding the salary of the said Bradshaw, for all his services is fixed by law at $4,500 per annum, nevertheless the said Bradshaw did, on March 31, 1921, charge to the said private inspection fund and collect therefrom in addition to said salary the sum of $300 (Book 2, page 13, check 436, Record of Private Inspection Fund), and on April 30, 1921, the sum of $100. Book 2, page 17, check 466, Record of Private Inspection Fund.

"(5) That the said Bradshaw collected from the state of Missouri the sum of $44.78 covering the expenses of an alleged trip to Jefferson City, St. Louis, and return, on January 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1921, which payment was included in state treasurer's draft No. 63141, and also collected from the private inspection fund for `Exp. to Jeff. City, St. Louis and return January 10, 11, 12, 13, 1921, $44.78' (Book 2, p. 5), and also collected January 10, 1921, `Exps. to Jeff. City and St. Louis on official business Jan. 1921, $43.78' (Book 1, page 173, check 303, Record of Private Inspection Fund).

"(6) That the said Bradshaw collected from the state treasury included in above mentioned state treasurer's draft, the sum of $45.89 covering expenses of trip to Jefferson City on January 30, 31, February 1, 2, 3, 4, 1921, and also collected from said private inspection fund for `Exp. to Jeff. City, St. Louis, and return, Jan. SO, 31, Feb. 1, 2, 3, 1921, $45.89.' Book 2, page 5, Record of Private Inspection Fund.

"(7) That the said Bradshaw has paid and still is paying to certain employees of his department larger salaries than are allowed by law to be paid, charging the salaries allowed by law to be paid to such employees out of the state revenue fund, and the surplus out of the private inspection fund.

"(8) That said Bradshaw has charged to the state, expenses and costs of trips made for political and private purposes only.

"(9) Said James T. Bradshaw, warehouse commissioner, has and does now continue in the employ of his department persons who are notably inefficient and are so rated by the warehouse committee of the Board of Trade of Kansas City, and of the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Markets, and whose inefficiency is well known to said Bradshaw, or could well and easily be determined by the said Bradshaw by the most casual investigation.

"(10) Said James T. Bradshaw, warehouse commissioner, permitted the serious waste to the state in that, through lax and wasteful administration, he permitted and allowed the accumulation of surplus grain samples within his office to be used for private purposes, continuing such practice until approximately the latter part of 1918, ceasing such practice only after the United States Food Administration had started an investigation and the case had been put in the hands of the United States Secret Service. During that period said grain samples were allowed to be taken and carried away from the office by private parties.

"(11) Said James T. Bradshaw does not now exercise proper care in the collection and disposition of said surplus grain samples. The records of sales of said grain samples show that the private weighing and inspection fund, received, for the month of April, 1921, $24.60; for the month of March, 1921. $86.40; for the month of February, 1921, $75.04; for the month of January, 1921, $92.34.

"(12) Said James T. Bradshaw, by his inefficient administration permitted the expense of his department during the year ending December 31, 1920, to increase $10,202.75, over the expenses for the year ending December 31, 1919, although the business done was less and receipts of said department for the same period show a decrease of $3,336.82.

"I do hereby set down the 11th day of June, 1921, as a day upon which hearing of said charges shall be had at the office of the Governor at Jefferson City, state of Missouri, beginning at 10 o'clock a. m.

"Given under my hand at the office of the Governor in the city of Jefferson, this 28th day of May, 1921.

"Arthur M. Hyde, Governor."

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.

241 S.W. 406

That during the hearing (the witness Bradshaw being then upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...construed so as to prevent trickery, surprise, or fraud on the legislators. State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; Asel v. City, 287 Mo. 195; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298; State ex rel. v. Thomas, 313 Mo. 160; Bottlin......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...special law. State ex rel. Rolston v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 246 Mo. 512, 152 S.W. 28; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 241 S.W. 402. (9) The act contains mere classification for legislation, without any regard to necessity therefor, and without regard or relation to the ......
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, No. 28285.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 18, 1928
    ...This classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable and hence it is a general and not a local or special law. State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 477; State ex rel. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275; State v. Keating, 202 Mo. 197; State ex rel. v. Speed, 183 Mo. 1......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., No. 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...Mo. 398, 414, 289 S.W. 925; Gross v. Atchison County, 320 Mo. 332, 337, 8 S.W. (2d) 887; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21, 62, 241 S.W. 402, 415; Nalley v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452, 469, 157 S.W. 769. "The law does not require each separate legislative thought......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...construed so as to prevent trickery, surprise, or fraud on the legislators. State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; Asel v. City, 287 Mo. 195; Booth v. Scott, 276 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298; State ex rel. v. Thomas, 313 Mo. 160; Bottlin......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...special law. State ex rel. Rolston v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 246 Mo. 512, 152 S.W. 28; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 241 S.W. 402. (9) The act contains mere classification for legislation, without any regard to necessity therefor, and without regard or relation to the ......
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, No. 28285.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 18, 1928
    ...This classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable and hence it is a general and not a local or special law. State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 477; State ex rel. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275; State v. Keating, 202 Mo. 197; State ex rel. v. Speed, 183 Mo. 1......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., No. 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...Mo. 398, 414, 289 S.W. 925; Gross v. Atchison County, 320 Mo. 332, 337, 8 S.W. (2d) 887; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21, 62, 241 S.W. 402, 415; Nalley v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452, 469, 157 S.W. 769. "The law does not require each separate legislative thought......
  • 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