State v. Valliant
| Decision Date | 10 March 1890 |
| Citation | 100 Mo. 59,13 S.W. 398 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. UNION DEPOT R. CO. et. al. v. VALLIANT, Judge, et al. |
Frank, Dawson & Garvin, Smith P. Galt, and Hitchcock, Madill & Finkelnburg, for petitioners. Lubke & Muench, for respondents.
This is an application for a rule upon respondents to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prevent the circuit court of St. Louis from further assuming jurisdiction of certain pending condemnation proceedings. The petitioners in this court are the defendants in those proceedings. Respondents are the plaintiff therein, and the circuit judge before whom the matter is pending. They have appeared to this application, resisting the issue of any rule on the showing made. It appears that the Southern Railway Company instituted the proceedings in question in the circuit court of St. Louis, in special term, No. 5, before Judge VALLIANT, to acquire the right to run its cars over the tracks of certain other street railroad companies, defendants, for a distance of several blocks, in the public streets of St. Louis. It invoked the power of eminent domain for this purpose through the usual process of condemnation, claiming the right to do so under the statutes of the state, and ordinances of the city.
That the circuit court of St. Louis has jurisdiction of proceedings to appropriate property to public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, in a proper case, is unquestioned and unquestionable; but the substance of the petitioners' contention here, as well as the ground on which they, as defendants, resisted the proceedings in the circuit court, is that the statutes and ordinances do not authorize the exercise of such jurisdiction on behalf of the Southern Railway Company. We are of opinion that the question thus raised is not a proper one for our decision upon this application. Where the action or course which a court is about to adopt is such as it has lawful power to take, it should not,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stobie
....... Marshall and Valliant, JJ., dissenting. . In Banc. Application for writ of prohibition, on relation of George T. McNamee and others, against Frank Stobie, justice of the peace of Central township, St. Louis county, and others. Writ denied. . This is an original proceeding in this court. ......
-
State v. Wood
......For these reasons we think the provisional rule of prohibition should be made absolute against Judge Wood and the circuit court over which he presides, but, as Judge Ferris took no part in the case, it is ordered dismissed as to him. . BRACE, MARSHALL, and VALLIANT, JJ., concur. BURGESS, J., dissents. SHERWOOD, J., not being present at the hearing, takes no part in the decision. . BURGESS, J. . I respectfully dissent from the opinion rendered in this case by a majority of the court, which holds that the St. Louis circuit ......
-
State v. Shelton
......Gill, 137 Mo. 627, 39 S. W. 81; State v. Valliant, 123 Mo. 524, 27 S. W. 379, 28 S. W. 586; State v. Board of Equalization of Buchanan Co., 108 Mo. 235, 18 S. W. 782; State v. Edwards, 104 Mo. 125, 16 S. W. 117; State v. Southern Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 59, 13 S. W. 398; Railroad Co. v. Morton, 27 Mo. 317; Boren v. Welty, 4 Mo. 250). As was said by ......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
...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 ......