State v. Tracy

Citation237 Mo. 109,140 S.W. 888
PartiesSTATE ex rel. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS v. TRACY, Judge, et al.
Decision Date03 July 1911
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Graves and Lamm, JJ., dissenting.

In Banc. Petition by State of Missouri, on the relation of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, against Daniel O'Connell Tracy, Judge of the First District Police Court of the City of St. Louis, and the City of St. Louis, for writ of prohibition. Writ denied.

Thos. M. Pierce, for relator. Lambert E. Walther and Wm. E. Baird, for respondents.

KENNISH, J.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition brought by the relator, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, against the respondents, Daniel O'Connell Tracy, judge of the First district police court of the city of St. Louis, and the city of St. Louis. Relator filed its petition in this court on the 28th day of June, 1910. A preliminary rule in prohibition was issued against respondents as prayed and made returnable to the October term, 1910. In due time the respondents filed their return to the writ. The relator moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the cause, being thus at issue, is submitted for decision.

The pleadings are lengthy, and we do not deem it necessary that they should be set forth in this statement. The facts determinative of the case stand admitted by the respondents' return and by the relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The allegations of the petition are substantially as follows: That relator is a railway corporation, organized under the laws of this state, and in accordance with said laws and the ordinances of the city of St. Louis is engaged in the business of a terminal railway company within the limits of said city, receiving, transporting, and delivering cars and trains of cars from the various railway companies connected with its terminal lines, and in switching cars to and from industries and manufacturing companies within said city and to and from the Union Station, which station is owned and controlled by relator. That the respondent the city of St. Louis is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under a special charter adopted by its citizens in accordance with the Constitution and laws of this state. That the respondent Tracy, at the times mentioned, was and is the acting justice of the First district police court of said city, possessing jurisdiction of all suits for the recovery of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed for the violation of any ordinance of said city. That there are pending before respondent Tracy, as acting justice of said police court, against relator, about 200 separate cases for alleged violations of a certain ordinance, instituted by the respondent city and set for trial. That 17 cases for such alleged violations of said ordinance have been prosecuted to final judgment against relator in said police court and fines imposed amounting to the total sum of $7,050, from which judgments appeals have been taken to the court of criminal correction of said city. That in some of the cases so appealed to the latter court judgments have been rendered against relator and fines imposed aggregating the sum of $1,800. That all of said prosecutions are based upon alleged violations of ordinance No. 22,902, § 1224, of the ordinances of said city, which section is as follows: "Whoever shall himself, or by another, place upon any highway or other public place any obstruction not authorized by ordinance, or make any excavation in such place without lawful authority, or displace or remove any stones, stakes or other landmark placed by any officer of this city under authority thereof, or injure or deface any property, or violate any provisions of this ordinance for violation of which no specific penalty is provided, shall forfeit and pay not less than ten dollars." That said prosecutions were instituted by the city attorney of the respondent city by filing informations identical in form, except where there is a difference in the streets alleged to have been obstructed, and that many of the informations relate to the same streets and portions thereof. That the said informations, omitting caption and signature, are in the following form, to wit:

"Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a Corporation. To the City of St. Louis, Dr.

"To five hundred dollars, for the violation of an ordinance of said city, entitled `An ordinance in revision of the general ordinances of the city of St. Louis, being ordinance No. 22,902, section 1224, approved March 19th, 1907.'

"In this, to wit:

"In the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, on the ____ day of ____, 1909, and on divers other days and times prior thereto, the said Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a corporation, did then and there place and cause to be placed upon the public highway, known as ____ street, at or near city block ____ an obstruction not authorized by ordinance consisting of engines, cars and trains of cars operated and run over tracks lying across ____ street aforesaid.

"Contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided."

It is further alleged that no charge or allegation is contained in any of said informations that the tracks of relator were not laid, constructed, or maintained upon or across said streets with authority of law and with the consent of said city; that there is not now and was not at any of the times mentioned any ordinance of said city forbidding the operation or movement of engines, cars, or trains of cars across any street of said city, as appears from the printed and published ordinances of said city, which ordinances are exhibited with and made a part of the petition; that the said city has now printed 1,000 blank informations and is filling and filing the same, and if not prohibited from so doing by this court will continue to file other and further informations of the same character and will continue such prosecutions to the great and irreparable injury of the relator and to the destruction of its business; that relator has presented the jurisdictional questions against said prosecutions both to said police court and to the court of criminal correction, and its motions and objections have been overruled and disregarded; that the respondent court, being without jurisdiction in the premises, is wrongfully, illegally, and oppressively asserting and exercising jurisdiction in such causes against relator's constitutional rights, and will continue to do so unless prohibited by this court; that by reason of said prosecutions relator is compelled, at great cost and expense, to keep its attorneys almost constantly engaged in the defense thereof and in filing bonds and perfecting appeals therein; that the remedy of appeal is wholly inadequate; and that relator has endeavored in vain to obtain the consent of said city to stop the bringing of said suits and the prosecution of all except one, in order that the rights of the parties may be finally determined by the result of an appeal to this court.

It is further alleged that said section 1224 of the ordinances of said city, against the provisions whereof the relator is alleged to have offended, relates solely to objects placed and at rest in the public highways in said city, and not to vehicles in motion, operated along, upon, or across the same, and has no reference to or bearing upon the right to operate engines, cars, or trains of cars upon, along, or across the city's streets; that the regulation and operation of steam cars or steam railroads in said city are controlled and governed by the provisions of article 5, chapter 23, of said ordinances, embracing sections 1852 to 1862, inclusive; that in proceeding against relator under said informations said police court "is acting in excess of its jurisdiction and powers and is proceeding in grievous abuse of its powers, in holding your relator under the circumstances hereinbefore recited to defend against all or any number of said alleged informations; and it prays this court to protect it against the hardships, injustice, and oppression involved in requiring it to defend against all of said 210 alleged informations."

Relator has filed as exhibits with its petition copies of the sections of the ordinances of said city fixing and defining the jurisdiction of the police court, together with a descriptive list of the cases now pending against it in the said police court and the court of criminal correction.

The facts set forth in relator's petition are substantially admitted in respondents' return. Respondents...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1938
    ... ... Whether the pleading by which the case is presented justifies the relief prayed (or any relief, for that matter) is not the test. State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334 Mo. 713, 67 S.W. (2d) 981; State ex rel. Union Depot Ry. Co. v. Valliant, 100 Mo. 61, 13 S.W. 398; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182, 78 S.W. 1020; State ex rel. Term. Railroad Assn. v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 121, 140 S.W. 888; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191; State ex rel. Delmar Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307, 65 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Abeille Fire Ins. Co. v. Sevier
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1934
    ... ... 708-709, sec. 764A, p. 712, sec. 767, p. 716, sec. 770; Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 262; Ry. Co. v. Ware, 135 Mo. 230; State ex rel. v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256, 171 S.W. 72; State ex rel. v. Huck, 296 Mo. 374; State ex rel. v. Lamb, 237 Mo. 437; State ex rel. v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 109; State ex rel. v. Beals, 55 S.W. (2d) 1005 ...         FRANK, C.J ...         Prohibition: One hundred and forty stock fire insurance companies, relators herein, seek to prohibit respondent judge from enforcing a judgment for restitution rendered by him on May 26, ... ...
  • State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1942
    ... ... 1005; State ex rel. Rice v. Porterfield, 253 S.W ... 66; State ex rel. La Fon v. Riley, 4 S.W.2d 482. (d) ... Prohibition does not lie merely to escape or abrogate ... vexatious litigation or a multiplicity of suits. State ex ... rel. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis v. Tracy, 237 ... Mo. 109, 140 S.W. 888. (e) A writ of prohibition will not lie ... against mere errors and irregularities of a court if such ... court is acting within its jurisdiction and within the scope ... of the pleadings. State ex rel. Dawson v. Rombauer, ... 99 Mo. 216, 12 S.W. 661; State ... ...
  • State ex rel. Burtrum v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1947
    ... ... 76; 13 C.J., p. 15; Ex ... parte Le Mond, 245 S.W. 1057; Kelly v. City of Cape ... Girardeau, 89 S.W.2d 693; Terminal Railroad Assn. v ... United States, 69 L.Ed. 150; Delaney v. Police ... Court, 167 Mo. 667; State ex rel. Conran v ... Duncan, 333 Mo. 673; State ex rel. v. Tracy, ... 237 Mo. 109. (12) Any part of preliminary writ of prohibition ... which is beyond or in excess of purview of such writ is ... unauthorized and invalid. State ex rel. Stroh v ... Klene, 276 Mo. 206; State ex rel. v. Ross, 136 ... Mo. 259; 17 C.J.S., p. 16. (13) Even if the writ might ... ...
  • 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