State v. Shields

Decision Date14 November 1911
Citation237 Mo. 329,141 S.W. 585
PartiesSTATE ex rel. AMERICAN PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO. v. SHIELDS, Circuit Judge, et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

In Banc. Application for writ of prohibition by the State, at the relation of the American Pigment & Chemical Company, against George H. Shields, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, and another. Denied.

See, also, 150 Mo. App. 251, 130 S. W. 144.

Henry W. Femmer and Jas. T. Roberts, for relator. Jamison & Thomas, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Relator applied for a writ of prohibition against the judge of Division No. 9, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The purpose was to prohibit said judge from enforcing a judgment rendered therein in a case of Harry W. Stegall v. American Pigment & Chemical Company, the relator herein. The Stegall suit was first instituted in one of the justice's courts of the city of St. Louis and from thence taken to the circuit court. This is as far as we are informed by the petition for the writ of prohibition. The relator in this suit (the defendant in that suit) had challenged the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace over its person. There were two principal grounds assigned: (1) That the return of the special constable was insufficient to confer jurisdiction; and (2) that the defendant was a non-resident corporation, and was doing no business in this state.

We shall not go further into the petition of the relator in the present suit, because a full and complete return has been made by the respondent, Judge Shields, and the cause is submitted upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings. This kind of a motion in law concedes all of the facts which are well pleaded in the return. We are therefore more concerned in the facts found in the return. The return presents altogether a different case from that presented by the petition. From the return, it appears that the circuit court heard evidence on the question of fact as to whether or not this relator (defendant in the other suit) was actually doing business in this state at the time of service. It further appears from the return that relator in that case always appeared specially and raised the question of jurisdiction throughout; that when the motion going to the jurisdiction was ruled adversely by the circuit court relator refused to appear to the merits, and the cause was heard and judgment entered for $237.82 against this relator. The return further shows that from this judgment the relator in this case (defendant in that case) sued out a writ of error to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and that court, after a full consideration, affirmed the judgment nisi. See 150 Mo. App. 251, 130 S. W. 144. The application made to this court withheld the determinative facts of the case. The last amended return upon which judgment was entered in the circuit court was not set out in the petition, but another and different section. The fact that a writ of error was sued out was not set out. To read the petition for our writ, and then read the return, one would not take the two causes therein to be the same case. The facts of the return being undenied, and in law admitted by the motion for judgment, we will adjudge the case here upon those facts. This sufficiently states the case.

1. Our preliminary rule in prohibition in this case should be quashed for at least two reasons. These we take in order.

In the first place, where the jurisdiction of a court to hear and determine a case rests...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 1927
    ...of jurisdiction is final; there being no appeal. State ex rel. v. Mills, 231 Mo. loc. cit. 500, 133 S. W. 22; State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. loc. cit. 334, 141 S. W. 585; State ex rel. v. Gantt, 274 Mo. loc. cit. 510, 203 S. W. If we are going to measure the judgment rendered in New York......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 1934
    ...855; State ex rel. v. McQuillen, 262 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Ittner, 304 Mo. 135; State ex rel. v. Riley, 4 S.W. (2d) 482; State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329; State ex rel. v. Porterfield, 214 Mo. App. F.E. Williams, amicus curiae. The advancement of money to wage earners upon wage ass......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 1934
    ...855; State ex rel. v. McQuillen, 262 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Ittner, 304 Mo. 135; State ex rel. v. Riley, 4 S.W.2d 482; State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329; State ex rel. v. Porterfield, 214 Mo.App. F. E. Williams, amicus curiae. The advancement of money to wage earners upon wage assign......
  • Hall v. Wilder Manufacturing Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 1927
    ... ... v. Hays, 182 Mo.App. 113; ... Lobe v. Star & Herald Co., 187 A.D. 175; Cody v ... Motor Co., 196 F. 254. (3) Judgment of a foreign state ... can be collaterally attacked for want of jurisdiction. If ... there is no jurisdiction it is void. Pennoyer v ... Neff, 95 U.S. 714; ... v. Homer, 249 Mo. 65; State ... ex rel. v. Holtcamp, 266 Mo. 373; State ex rel. v ... Caulfield, 245 Mo. 679; State ex rel. v ... Shields, 237 Mo. 1047; State ex rel. v. Mills, ... 231 Mo. 499. (5) A motion to strike out admits the truth of ... the allegations sought to be ... ...
  • 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