State v. Pfeffle

• Decision Date: 21 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19395.,19395.
• Citation: 293 S.W. 512
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SHAW STATE BANK v. PFEFFLE, Justice of the Peace, etc.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

293 S.W. 512

STATE ex rel. SHAW STATE BANK v. PFEFFLE, Justice of the Peace, etc.

No. 19395.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 21, 1927.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Claude O. Pearcy, Judge.

Certiorari proceedings by the State, on the relation of the Shaw State Bank, to quash a judgment rendered by Henry Pfeifle, a justice of the peace within and for the Second district, city of St. Louis, Mo., against the Shaw State Bank. From the judgment quashing the judgment, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Jacob F. Pfeffie, Frank Lee, and Gatewood & Lee, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Marvin Boisseau, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court, quashing, on certiorari, a judgment rendered by appellant, a justice of the peace within and for the Second district, city of St. Louis, Mo., against Shaw State Bank, relator herein, in the amount of $500.

In the petition for the writ of certiorari, filed July 24, 1924, the following allegations appear :

"That on the 15th day of November, 1918, the respondent (appellant herein) in a suit pending before him in which R. W. Dick was plaintiff and R. V. Moran was defendant, based upon a promissory note executed by the defendant for the principal sum of $492, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the said principal sum of the note, together with interest amounting to $176.30, making a total judgment of $668.30, render ed in favor of said plaintiff and against said defendant. That on the 20th day of March, 1923, as a result of proceedings for reviving the said judgment, respondent entered a judgment reviving the judgment theretofore entered by him for the sum of $668.30 and costs in favor of the aforenamed plaintiff and against the said defendant. That on the 14th day of June, 1924, at the request of the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause, a summons of garnishment was served upon the relator, * * * reciting that all the goods, chattels, moneys, or evidences of debt which the relator then had belonging to the said R. V. Moran were attached, and summoning the relator as garnishee, said summons of garnishment being returnable before the respondent on the 24th day of June, 1924. That on the 18th day of June, 1924, the relator filed its answer to the interrogatories propounded by it before the respondent, * * * and in said answer denied that it had in its possession or under its control any property, money, goods, or effects belonging to the defendant R V. Moran, and further denied that it owed the said defendant any money at the time of the service of the garnishment, or at the time of making said answer. That said answer was duly signed by Marcus Turney, vice president of relator, and verified before a notary public, and was duly filed with the respondent on the 18th day of June, 1924.

"Relator further states: That the said answer was on file before respondent at the return day of the summons of garnishment, to wit, on the 24th day of June, 1924, and that the said answer was not denied or excepted to at any time by the plaintiff in said suit or by any one else. That under the law relator became thereupon discharged, and that the respondent had no further jurisdiction to make any order upon or enter any judgment against relator. That notwithstanding this the respondent made a memorandum upon the file in said cause marking the same continued until July 1, 1924. That upon the 1st day of July, 1924, the respondent made a further notation upon the file in said case to the effect that the same was continued until July 3, 1924. That on the 3d day of July, 1924, the respondent, without any notice to the relator, without the production of any evidence, end without any hearing whatsoever, assumed to enter a judgment by default against the relator for the sum of $500. * * *

"Relator further states: That the respondent was wholly without jurisdiction to render the said judgment against the relator, for the reason that respondent at no time acquired any jurisdiction over any funds in the hands of the relator belonging to R. V. Moran, and at no time were there any funds of the said R. V. Moran attached in the hands of the relator. That the said act on the part of respondent in rendering judgment against relator was in excess of respondent's jurisdiction, for the further reason that the relator was not in default an the return day of said summons of garnishment, but that complete and sufficient answers to the interrogatories propounded to it by law were on file with respondent at said time, which answer was not denied, and that the judgment rendered by relator is void.

"Relator further states: That it did not know and was not informed of the acts on the part of said respondent until after the time for taking an appeal had expired. That a writ of error will not issue to review the record of the respondent. And that a writ of certiorari issued out of this honorable court is the only adequate remedy now open to relator."

In due course the circuit court issued its writ of certiorari, to which a motion to quash was filed by the justice but overruled by the court. Thereafter the justice filed the following return:

"Respondent, for return to the writ issued in the above-entitled cause, denies each and every allegation and statement of fact in the petition of relator.

"Respondent, pursuant to the command of the within writ to me directed, herewith sends the complaint in the matter referred to in the petition of relator, together with all proceedings had or taken relating to said matter as fully and completely as they remain of record before me, particularly described and referred to as follows, to wit:

"No. 1. Petition of R. W. Dick, Plaintiff, v. R. V. Moran, Defendant.

"No. 2. Affidavit of Vourdon Fricke.

"No. 3. Summons for defendant in the case of Dick v. Moran, with return of constable thereon.

"No. 4. Letter of attorneys to plaintiff, dated October 28, 1918.

"No. 5. Exemption claim of defendant Moran. "No. 6. Affidavit of plaintiff to revive judgment.

"No. 7. Letter of attorneys inclosing affidavit to revive judgment, dated March 6, 1923.

"No. 8. Letter of attorneys dated April 16, 1923, asking for execution on revived judgment.

"No. 9. Citation to revive judgment, with constable's return thereon.

"No. 10. Summons of garnishee to Weiss-Meyerricks Realty Loan Company, a corporation, Arnold A. Weiss, and Geo. H. Meyerricks.

"No. 11. Answer of garnishee Geo. H. Meyerricks.

"No. 12. Answer of garnishee Weiss-Meyerricks Realty Loan Company, a corporation.

"No. 13. Answer of garnishee Arnold A. Weiss.

"No. 14. Letter of attorneys asking for execution on revived judgment, dated June 6, 1924.

"No. 15. Summons of garnishee Shaw State Bank and Majestic Homes Corporation, with return of constable thereon.

"No. 16. Purported answer of Shaw State Bank.

"No. 17. Copy of letter dated June 25, 1924, requesting garnishee Shaw State Bank to make proper answer.

"I certify that judgment was rendered against the Shaw State Bank in the amount of $500 on July 3, 1924.

"Given under my hand this 26th day of July, 1924. Henry Pfeffie, Respondent Justice of the Peace."

On December 8, 1924, the circuit court rendered its judgment, quashing the judgment theretofore rendered by the justice against relator and ordering that relator be released and discharged as garnishee, from which judgment, after an unavailing motion for a rehearing, this appeal has been perfected.

We gather from the abstract of the record and briefs that this entire controversy arose because relator's vice president, who signed the answer to the interrogatories, affixed his signature to the caption of the answer immediately underneath the words "Shaw State Bank" instead of at the close of the answer and above the jurat. The justice took the view, evidently, that the answer was improperly signed, or, in the language of the statute, not full and direct, and therefore void, and, accordingly, rendered judgment by default against relator.

Appellant has assigned 20 alleged errors which, for the sake of brevity, we will not proceed to consider seriatim, inasmuch as all of them involve in one form or another the sole question of whether certiorari was available to relator as a means for obtaining relief from the judgment rendered in the justice court against it. The determination of this question necessarily requires a brief discussion of the legitimate scope and purpose of certiorari in this state.

We begin with the well-established principle that the writ of certiorari performs the same office in this jurisdiction as at common law. State ex rel. v. Landon, 304 Mo. 654, 265 S. W. 529; State ex rel. v. Goodrich, 257 Mo. 40, 165 S. W. 707; State ex rel. v. Dawson, 284 Mo. 490, 225 S. W. 97; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 310 Mo. 150, 274 S. W. 1075. It is not a writ of right, but issues only on special cause shown to the court to which application therefor is made; and such court is vested with a sound judicial discretion, dependent upon the established legal principles applicable to the particular facts of the case, either to grant the writ or to refuse it, as substantial justice may seem to require. State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190, 60 S. W. 1093; State ex rel. v. Hall, 282 Mo. 425, 221 S. W. 708; State ex rel. v. Trimble, supra; 11 C. J. 128.

The chief object of certiorari is to confine inferior tribunals within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, and it is therefore the appropriate remedy to be pursued where an inferior court has acted either without or in excess or abuse of its jurisdiction, although it may not be used as a substitute for appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. v. Shelton, 154 Mo. 670, 55 S. W. 1008, 50 L. R. A. 798; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 190 Mo. 578, 89 S. W. 877; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 238 Mo. 189, 142 S. W. 340; State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, ...