State v. St. Louis Court of Appeals

• Decision Date: 18 February 1889
• Citation: 97 Mo. 276,10 S.W. 874
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CAMPBELL et al. v. ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 874

97 Mo. 276

STATE ex rel. CAMPBELL et al. v. ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 18, 1889.

1. COURTS — JURISDICTION — SUPREME COURT — CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

To a petition for an injunction by one claiming the exclusive right to operate a ferry between a city in Missouri and one in Illinois, under a license from the former city, against the operators of another ferry between the same points, defendants answered, alleging that the ordinance under which plaintiff claimed was void as an attempt to regulate commerce between the states in violation of the constitution of the United States, and also as an attempt to create a monopoly in violation of the constitution of the state of Missouri. Held, that the record presented a question involving the construction of the constitutions of the United States and of the state, within Const. Mo. art. 6, § 12, conferring jurisdiction in such cases upon the supreme court, and that the St. Louis court of appeals had no jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from an order dismissing the petition.

2. PROHIBITION, WRIT OF — ISSUANCE OF ATTACHMENT AND INJUNCTION.

An appeal was taken and perfected to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and an injunction granted against the operation of defendant's ferry, and also an attachment issued against defendants for contempt in violating the temporary injunction after the appeal had been perfected. Held that, as the attachment had not been executed, and as the threatened judgment had been stayed only by rule from this court, defendants were entitled to a writ of prohibition.

3. SAME — CONTENTS OF WRIT.

In such a case, as incident to the general command, a clause will be inserted in the writ, requiring the St. Louis court of appeals to transfer the case to the supreme court, as required by Acts 1885, p. 121, providing that when an appeal is taken to that court, when it should have been allowed to the supreme court, the court of appeals must transfer the cause to the supreme court.

Application for writ of prohibition.

George D. Reynolds, for relators. J. B. Dennis and Dyer, Lee & Ellis, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

The prayer of the petition is that the St. Louis court of appeals be prohibited from taking further cognizance of the case of Richard Carroll against Campbell and Houck, who are the relators in this proceeding, and that that court be commanded to transfer the cause to this court, on the ground that we alone have jurisdiction. From the pleadings it appears the city of Cape Girardeau passed an ordinance giving to Carroll the sole and exclusive right to operate a steam ferry-boat from that city to the Illinois shore, and of receiving and landing passengers and property within the corporate limits of the city, for the period of 10 years. Carroll has a license for a like period of time from the local authorities on the Illinois shore. The city of Cape Girardeau refused Campbell and Houck a ferry license, and, without a license, they put their steam-boat in the ferry business, in opposition to Carroll, receiving and landing passengers within the corporate limits of the city. Carroll commenced his suit in the circuit court against the relators, and procured a temporary injunction, restraining them from operating their ferry-boat within the limits of the city. The venue of that cause was changed to Madison county. The defendants answered, and also filed motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, and upon a hearing the injunction was dissolved, and the petition dismissed. On the 5th October, 1886, Carroll gave bond, and perfected an appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals. In that court Carroll filed an information in the cause, stating that relators had violated the temporary injunction by running their ferry-boat after he had perfected his appeal. To a rule issued by the St. Louis court of appeals to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt, the relators made formal answer, claiming — First, that the appeal from the judgment of the circuit court did not reinstate the temporary injunction; second, that they had violated no process of the St. Louis court of appeals; and, third, stating that the case was one involving the construction of the constitution of the United States and of this state, and that the supreme court alone had jurisdiction, and asked that the cause be transferred to this court. To this answer Carroll filed a demurrer, and the court took the matter under advisement. The court, in the mean time, heard the case on its merits, the relators insisting that the court had no jurisdiction of the appeal. On the 3d May, 1888, the court of appeals rendered a judgment reversing the judgment of the circuit court, and entered a judgment enjoining the defendants, relators here, from operating their ferry-boat, and at the same time ordered an attachment for defendants, to the end that they be brought to the bar of the court to receive punishment for violating the temporary injunction issued by the circuit court. Thereupon the defendants commenced this proceeding.

The first and most important question to be determined is whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction of the case of Carroll against Campbell and Houck on the appeal from the circuit court. Connected with that is a question of pleading. By section 12, art. 6, of the constitution, and the amendment thereto, adopted in 1884, this court has jurisdiction "in all cases involving the construction of the constitution of the United States, or of this state." In such cases the appeal should be to this court, for it has exclusive jurisdiction in all such cases. Acts 1883, p. 216, § 5. By the act of March 18, 1885, (Acts 1885, p. 121,) it is provided that where an appeal is taken to either of the courts of appeal, when it should have been allowed to this court, the court of...