State v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

Citation141 S.W. 643,237 Mo. 338
PartiesSTATE, ex inf. ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. et al.
Decision Date27 November 1911
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

In Banc. Quo warranto by the State, on the information of the Attorney General, against the Missouri Pacific Railway and others. Ouster refused, and defendants discharged.

Herbert S. Hadley, Atty. Gen., Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., John Kennish, Asst. Atty. Gen. (F. W. Lehmann, of counsel), for the State. Martin L. Clardy and R. T. Railey, for respondents.

VALLIANT, C. J.

The information is in quo warranto. The respondents are Missouri corporations. The business for which each was incorporated is indicated by its corporate name, a railroad company, two coal mining companies, and an elevator company.

The charge in the information is that the railroad company has acquired the capital stock of the three other corporations, and is engaged in conducting the business for which they were incorporated. More specifically stated, the charge is that the Western Coal & Mining Company was organized under the laws of this state in 1879, with capital stock of $500,000, for the purpose of carrying on a general coal and mining business in Missouri, Kansas, and elsewhere, with power to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire mineral and other lands for the purpose of mining coal and other minerals, buying and selling coal, etc., and owning and operating machinery and appurtenances necessary to carry on that business, and that, after its organization, the corporation entered upon the business for which it was chartered, and continued to conduct the same until the acquisition of its capital stock by the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, whereupon it ceased to perform its functions, and the business has since and is still being conducted alone by the railroad company, to the injury of the interests and welfare of the people of the state. Like specifications are made in relation to the Rich Hill Coal & Mining Company, and, varying only in reference to the character of the business, relating also to the Kansas-Missouri Elevator Company. The conclusion from those facts drawn in the information is that the two coal companies and the elevator company have lost their integrity and individuality, and are rendered incapable of exercising the franchises granted by their respective charters, that each had become a mere cover for the unlawful exercise of power by the railroad company, and their further existence is of injury to the people of the state. The prayer is that the two coal companies and the elevator company be ousted of their charters, that the railroad company be ordered to cease operating the business of those three companies, and, failing to heed such order, that it be ousted of the corporate rights granted by its charter.

The respondents file a joint answer to the following effect: They admit the organization of each of the corporations as stated in the information and the purpose for which it was organized, and they admit that a majority of the capital stock of the three other companies is owned by a trustee who holds the legal title thereto for the use and benefit of the railroad company, but aver that there are four other persons who each own at least one share of the stock. Referring to the averment in the information to the effect that the railroad company holds its charter from the state and has only the powers granted to it as a railroad company by the laws of the state which are only such powers as are necessary, convenient, and incident to the construction, maintenance, and operation of a railroad as a public highway, and that, under the Constitution, it can engage in no business other than that expressly authorized by the charter or the law under which it may have been organized, the answer avers that the railroad company has offended in no respect the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State ex rel. Russell v. Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 28 Septiembre 1931
    ... ... THE STATE EX REL. JAMES N. RUSSELL, M.C. POLFER AND F.E. THOMPSON ... STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION ... No. 30923 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... Court en Banc, September 28, 1931 ... [42 S.W.2d 197] ...         Mandamus ...         PEREMPTORY WRIT DENIED ... Crawley, 188 Mo. 55; Pitts v. Howard, 208 Ala. 380, 94 So. 495; State v. Erickson, 75 Mont. 429, 244 Pac. 287; 2 C.J. 1164, note 47; Stockton v. Maddock, 10 Fed. 134. (3) The constitutional amendment as it is applied to Highway No. 40 in question. (a) ... ...
  • State ex Inf. Atty-Gen. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1928
    ... ... THE STATE EX INF. NORTH TODD GENTRY, Attorney-General, ... LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY ... No. 27342 ... Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc ... December 7, 1928 ... [12 S.W.2d 66] ...         Quo Warranto ...         WRIT DENIED ... Thurston v. State, 43 Tenn. 115; Fenet v. McCuistian, 147 S.W. (Tex.) 869; Cooper v. Light & Railway Co., 102 Pac. (Utah) 206. (3) The language of the amendment obtained by the lumber company cannot be construed to give the company authority to purchase fourteen ... ...
  • Niedringhaus v. William F. Niedringhaus Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 1 Diciembre 1931
    ... ... Niedringhaus and Nathaniel B. Randolph Nos. 29624, 29625 Supreme Court of Missouri December 1, 1931 ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; ... Mo. 695; Shuck v. Lawton, 249 Mo. 168; Marsala ... v. Marsala, 288 Mo. 501; State ex rel. v. St ... Louis, 145 Mo. 551; Womach v. St. Joseph, 201 ... Mo. 467; Handlan v ... ...
  • State ex rel. Russell v. State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 28 Septiembre 1931
    ... ... 942 The State ex rel. James N. Russell, M. C. Polfer and F. E. Thompson v. State Highway Commission Supreme Court of Missouri September 28, 1931 ...           ... Peremptory writ denied ...           L ... E. Durham, W. C. Hock and Henry S. Conrad ... ...
  • 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