State v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1914
• Parties: STATE ex rel. JONES v. ROBERTSON et al., Judges.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

172 S.W. 21

STATE ex rel. JONES v. ROBERTSON et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 19, 1914.

1. COURTS (§ 231)—SUPREME COURT—CASES INVOLVING CONFLICT WITH PREVIOUS DECISION.

On certiorari, under Const. Amend. 1884, § 6, to correct a decision of a Court of Appeals, as in conflict with the last previous ruling of the Supreme Court, the case will not be reviewed as though it were on appeal, but the only matter which will be determined is whether the opinion as delivered conflicts with the ruling of the Supreme Court.

2. COURTS (§ 231)—MISSOURI—PRECEDENTS.

A decision of the Springfield Court of Appeals that there was a compliance with Rev. St. 1899, § 5848, requiring the specifications for sewers to be prescribed by ordinance, where the ordinance accepting a bid for the construction of sewers referred to specifications for the work, is not in conflict with any controlling decision of the Supreme Court.

3. COURTS (§ 231)—SUPREME COURT — DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS.

A decision of a Court of Appeals will not be disturbed on certiorari sued out on the ground that it was in conflict with a ruling of the Supreme Court, merely because the judgment of the Court of Appeals was erroneous.

In Banc. Certiorari by the State, on relation of McLain Jones, against William R. Robertson and others, Judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals. Preliminary writ quashed, and petition denied.

Certiorari to quash an opinion filed and judgment entered by respondents as judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals, affirming a judgment of the circuit court of Greene county in the case of City of Springfield, Mo., to the use of E. Plummer, Respondent, v. McLain Jones, Appellant, 165 S. W. 863. This last-named action will hereafter be designated as the "Jones Case." This Jones Case was instituted to enforce the lien of tax bills issued to pay the cost of constructing a district sewer in Springfield, a city of the third class. It is contended by relator that, in the opinion complained of, respondents have held and decreed that it was not necessary for the common council of the city of Springfield to define by ordinance the dimensions of a district sewer and the materials of which it should be constructed prior to the enactment by said council of an ordinance accepting a bid for the construction of such sewer, and that in announcing such holding respondents have ignored three controlling decisions of this court, which will be hereafter noted; that in thus failing to follow the last previous ruling of the Supreme Court respondents have violated section 6 of the amendment to article 6 of our Constitution adopted in 1884.

McLain Jones, of Springfield, pro se. I. V. McPherson, of Aurora, and Wright Bros., of Springfield, for relator. Barbour & McDavid, of Springfield, for respondents.

BROWN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

I. Before making a further statement of the facts in this case or announcing our conclusions on said facts, we deem it worth while to say that both relator and respondents have presented the case in a somewhat confusing manner. Relator has invited us to try the cause as though it were here on appeal, emphasizing some issues which were not even discussed by respondents in their opinion filed, and by trying to demonstrate that the opinion complained of is not in harmony with other decisions of the several courts of appeals; while respondents have also asked us to review evidence not set out in the opinion.

Practically all these things are outside of the issues of this case. Under our former rulings in this class of cases, we will not review a case by certiorari in the same manner as though it were before us on appeal.

For the purposes of this action of certiorari, we are not concerned as to whether the respondents considered all the issues submitted to them in the Jones Case, nor whether they overruled or refused to follow some decision of the several Courts of Appeals.

In the very recent case of State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. Reynolds et al., 165 S. W. loc. cit. 732, we said:

"* * * We will consider only the pleadings, evidence, and facts as recited by the Court of Appeals whose judgment is sought to be quashed. It may be argued that, should the judges of the Courts of Appeals fail to state the pleadings and facts correctly (a point upon which I personally have no fears), it might result in some individual case being decided incorrectly, and not in harmony with our previous rulings; but that would not militate against the primary object sought by section 6, art. 6, supra, i. e., the uniformity of judicial construction on issues of law and equity in this state."

The construction of the sewer,...