State v. Reynolds

Decision Date24 December 1907
Citation209 Mo. 161,107 S.W. 487
PartiesSTATE ex rel. SULLIVAN et al. v. REYNOLDS, Judge.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

A receiver was appointed by the circuit court of St. Louis county, a court of competent jurisdiction, to take charge of the assets of a corporation and administer them. This receiver was removed and another appointed in his stead. From an order refusing to vacate the second appointment an appeal was granted and the assets turned over to the corporation on the giving of bond. During pendency of this appeal the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, having concurrent jurisdiction with the county court, took jurisdiction of an action by creditors of the corporation, and a receiver was appointed to administer the assets. Held that, since the assets were by the first action in custodia legis, and that court still retained jurisdiction of the cause, the circuit court of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction of the cause, and prohibition was the proper remedy to prevent its exercise of jurisdiction.

In Banc. An original proceeding by the state, on the relation of William B. Sullivan and others, against Matt G. Reynolds, judge, to obtain a writ of prohibition. Granted.

This is an original proceeding instituted in this court, seeking to prohibit the respondent, as judge of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, from taking and further exercising jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject-matter involved in the case of Louis F. Algrem et al. v. William B. Sullivan et al. pending in the circuit court of said city. The facts in the case are not disputed, and are substantially as follows, as disclosed by the petition for the preliminary writ and the return thereto of the respondent, to wit:

At the May term, 1905, of the circuit court of St. Louis county, Mo., one Herman H. Wehrs filed a petition in said court against William B. Sullivan, doing business as the Home Co-operative Company, asking an injunction and the appointment of a receiver for the assets of said William B. Sullivan, doing business as aforesaid. A receiver, Francis A. Tillman, was appointed, gave bond, took charge of the property of said company, and begun to administer and settle its business. At the September term, 1905, the said circuit court entered a final judgment in said cause, making the injunction permanent, and confirming the appointment of the receiver, Tillman. At the subsequent term of said circuit court an order was entered of record requiring said William B. Sullivan and the contract holders and creditors of said Home Co-operative Company, for which Tillman had been appointed receiver, to appear before the court on April 7, 1906, and show cause why the judgment or decree in said cause making the injunction permanent and confirming the appointing of Tillman as receiver of said company should not be vacated and set aside. On April 7, 1906, the order to show cause was continued until April 11, 1906. On this day one William L. Watkins, supervisor of building and loan associations of the state of Missouri, filed what he termed an "interplea," asking the court to vacate and set aside the judgment or decree heretofore rendered in this cause, to remove Tillman as receiver, and to appoint him (Watkins) as receiver under the alleged authority of a statute of Missouri, approved April 21, 1903 (Laws 1903, pp. 110-113 [Ann. St. 1906, §§ 1541-1-1541-10]).

The court at a subsequent term (April 21, 1906) made an order setting aside and vacating its judgment and decree entered at a former term confirming the appointment of said Tillman as receiver, removed the latter, and entered an interlocutory order appointing William L. Watkins, as supervisor of building and loan associations, receiver of said Home Co-operative Company. An order was entered requiring said Tillman to turn over all the assets of said company to Watkins, which was done, and Watkins, as supervisor and receiver, took charge of the assets and representatives of value of said company. William B. Sullivan thereupon filed a motion to set aside the interlocutory order appointing said Watkins, as supervisor, receiver of said Home Co-operative Company, which was by the court overruled. Exceptions were saved thereto, and an affidavit for appeal to the Supreme Court filed, which was by the trial court denied. Said Sullivan thereupon applied for and was granted a writ of mandamus on said trial judge, requiring him to grant an appeal from his refusal to vacate and set aside the interlocutory order appointing said Watkins, as supervisor, receiver of said Home Co-operative Company. For his return to said writ of mandamus the trial judge granted said appeal, and the same was perfected and is now pending and undetermined in this court. Upon the granting of this appeal William B. Sullivan, the appellant, entered into a bond in the sum of $20,000 which was approved by the trial court, and the assets of said company ordered to be turned over to him or to his attorney, Thos. C. Hennings, which was not done; but said Watkins continued in possession of said assets, still has possession of same, and has not delivered or surrendered said assets or any part of same to said William B. Sullivan, or his attorney. Subsequently, at the April term, 1907, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, in which Hon. Matt G. Reynolds was presiding as judge, one Louis F. Algrem and others filed a petition in said circuit court against William B. Sullivan, doing business as the Home Co-operative Company, and William L. Watkins, as receiver of the said Home Co-operative Company, and asked in said petition, among other things, that the court appoint a receiver for the said Home Co-operative Company, alleging that they, the plaintiffs, were contract holders and interested in the distribution of its assets. The nature and purpose of this proceeding in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis was to require William B. Sullivan, as the Home Co-operative Company, nominally, and William L. Watkins, actually, as receiver, to render an accounting to said circuit court of the assets of said Home Co-operative Company then in his possession as such receiver, and to have said circuit court appoint a receiver for said assets, and to restrain and enjoin said Sullivan and said Watkins as receiver from transferring or in any way controlling or disposing of said assets, and that said circuit court assume, through its own receiver, the custody, control, and final distribution of the assets of said company. The said petition by Algrem and others in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis also set forth the fact that a receiver had theretofore been appointed for the assets of the said Home Co-operative Company in the circuit court of St. Louis county, and that an appeal had been taken in said case to the Supreme Court, where same was then pending and undetermined.

The said circuit court of the city of St. Louis, in which respondent was then and there presiding as judge, upon the filing of said petition, issued therein a restraining order restraining and enjoining William B. Sullivan, and William L. Watkins, as receiver, and their servants and agents, from disposing of or transferring any of the assets of said Home Co-operative Company until the further orders of the court, and further ordered that said Sullivan and said Watkins as receiver be and appear before said court on May 6, 1907, and show cause why a receiver should not be appointed for said Home Co-operative Company, and why a temporary injunction should not be granted against said defendants restraining and enjoining them from disposing of or transferring the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • Cleveland v. Ward
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 9 d3 Junho d3 1926
    ...and cases there cited; Neill v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W. 147, 150; State ex rel. Sullivan v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S. W. 487, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 963, 970, 123 Am. St. Rep. 468, 14 Ann. Cas. 198; 7 Ruling Case Law, p. 1067, § 105; State ex rel. Parsons Mining Co. v. McClure, ......
  • Troll v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 d1 Maio d1 1914
    ...of that court is in the custody of the court." To the same effect is the case of State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S. W. 487, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 963, 123 Am. St. Rep. 468, 14 Ann. Cas. 198. And as is well said by counsel for appellant in his reply "It is hardly necessary to argue......
  • State ex rel. Madden v. Sartorius
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 28 d2 Julho d2 1942
    ...and all other courts until full and complete justice is done to all parties interested in that subject matter. State ex rel. Sullivan v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S.W. 487. Cases under Point (12), par. (a), supra. (14) The admitted facts show the circuit court acquired jurisdiction when th......
  • New York Life Ins. Co. v. Feinberg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 d1 Abril d1 1948
    ...jurisdiction, the one whose jurisdiction first attaches will retain it and proceed to final judgment. [State ex rel. Sullivan v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S.W. 487, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 963; New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weyenberg, 29 Fed. Supp. 177.] Nor does the offer of appellants to pe......
  • 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