State v. Shields

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Graves
• Citation: 237 Mo. 329,141 S.W. 585
• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Parties: STATE ex rel. AMERICAN PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO. v. SHIELDS, Circuit Judge, et al.

141 S.W. 585 237 Mo. 329 STATE ex rel. AMERICAN PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO.
v.
SHIELDS, Circuit Judge, et al. Supreme Court of Missouri. November 14, 1911. Rehearing Denied November 27, 1911.

1. PROHIBITION (§ 26)—PLEADINGS—MOTION FOR JUDGMENT—EFFECT.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings, in prohibition against a circuit judge to prevent him from enforcing a judgment, concedes all the facts well pleaded in the return.

2. PROHIBITION (§ 3) — DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION—REMEDY BY APPEAL.

Where the jurisdiction of a court to determine a case rests on facts, the Supreme Court will not by prohibition preclude the inferior court from determining its jurisdiction from the facts, and after it has determined it the Supreme Court will not interfere, as any error can be corrected by appeal.

3. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (§ 141)—APPEAL —JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURT.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court on appeal from a justice's court is dependent on the jurisdiction of the justice's court; and the circuit court may determine its own jurisdiction, where it rests on facts.

4. PROHIBITION (§ 5)—FINAL JUDGMENT.

A judgment of the Court of Appeals, which adjudges, within its jurisdiction, that the return of service of process on a foreign corporation, and the facts proved, showed that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the corporation, is res judicata, and bars prohibition to prohibit the enforcement of a judgment against the foreign corporation for want of jurisdiction over it.

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...