State v. Wilkie Land Co., No. 26196.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtHughes
Citation165 S.W.2d 432
Docket NumberNo. 26196.
Decision Date04 November 1942
PartiesSTATE on inf. of McKITTRICK, Atty. Gen., ex rel. HANDLAN v. WILKIE LAND CO.
165 S.W.2d 432
STATE on inf. of McKITTRICK, Atty. Gen., ex rel. HANDLAN
v.
WILKIE LAND CO.
No. 26196.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
November 4, 1942.

[165 S.W.2d 433]

Appeal from Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, David J. Murphy, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Quo warranto proceeding by the State at the information of Roy McKittrick, Attorney General for the State of Missouri at the relation of A. H. Handlan against Wilkie Land Company, a corporation, to secure the forfeiture of the charter and franchise of the corporation. From a judgment dismissing the proceeding, the relator appeals.

Affirmed.

J. Jules Brinkman and Francis C. Flynn, both of St. Louis, for relator.

Julius T. Muench and Norman Begeman, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

HUGHES, Presiding Judge.


This proceeding was instituted by the filing of an information in the nature of a quo warranto to secure the forfeiture of the respondent's charter and franchise. The information is in three counts, viz: (1) That respondent is making an illegal and unwarranted use of its property, and dissipating its assets; (2) that the respondent made improper tax returns, with the intent of defrauding the State; and (3) that the respondent is illegally holding property not necessary for its corporate purposes, for a period longer than six years. The information was filed on November 9, 1939. On January 25, 1940, the respondent filed a demurrer to the information alleging that the information did not contain allegations of fact sufficient to constitute a cause of action against respondent, which demurrer was overruled on April 1, 1940, and later, on April 10, 1940, respondent filed an amended return, which contained among other allegations the charge that the information did not contain allegations of fact sufficient to constitute a cause of action against respondent, and the further charge that leave to institute the proceeding was improvidently granted by the court because Joseph A. Lennon, who signed the information as "Special Counsel for Attorney-General", had no authority to institute or prosecute the proceeding. On December 14, 1940, respondent withdrew its amended return and filed its motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the information was filed by a special counsel for the Attorney-General without authority to institute the proceeding. This motion was sustained by the court on April 18, 1941, and the proceeding was ordered dismissed, and in due course the appeal to this Court followed.

Prior to the institution of this proceeding two other informations of the same purport as this had been successively filed, and each had been dismissed. The first information having been filed in June or July, 1939. The application for leave of court to file this information was signed as follows: "Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General of the State of Missouri. By J. A. Lennon, Special Counsel for Attorney-General of the State of Missouri." And the information was signed as follows: "Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, by J. A. Lennon, Special Counsel for Attorney-General".

At the hearing of respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding Mr. Joseph A. Lennon testified as follows: That in June or July, 1939, he was an Assistant Attorney-General, and at that time he had a conference with the Attorney-General in regard to this proceeding; that prior to such conference he had several conferences with Mr. Brinkman, an attorney representing the relator, and at least one, possibly two, conferences with Mr. Brinkman and Mr. J. E. Taylor, who was First Assistant to the Attorney-General at that time; that Mr. Taylor said it was the policy of the Attorney-General's office to not lend aid as a principle and as a practice to quo warranto suits; that they had no objection to such suits wherein the facts justified the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shain, No. 38066.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 12, 1942
    ...absent substantial evidence to that effect. That portion of respondents' opinion holding that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a 165 S.W.2d 432 recovery for permanent injuries conflicts with the rulings made in the cases Respondents' opinion also mentioned that the Service Company h......
  • State v. Gardner, No. 6737.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 10, 1947
    ...the organization of the district or the rights of the other relators to act as directors. State ex rel. v. Wilkie Land Co., Mo. App., 165 S.W.2d 432; State ex rel. Black v. Taylor, 208 Mo. 442, 106 S.W. 1023, 13 Ann.Cas. 1058; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Ryan v. Huffman et al., Mo.App., 2......
  • State ex rel. Crist v. Nationwide Financial Corp. of Missouri, No. 40900
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 10, 1979
    ...by real estate." Such dismissal represents a final appealable order. State on inf. of McKittrick ex rel. Handlan v. Wilkie Land Co., 165 S.W.2d 432 The statutory provisions relevant to our decision are as follows: Section 408.030. Interest, maximum rate allowed . . . . 1. After January 9, 1......
  • State ex rel. Eagleton v. Hall, No. 10
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1965
    ...empowered to waive the state's immunity. In State on inf. of McKittrick, Attorney General, ex rel. Handlan v. Wilkie Land Co., Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 432, 435[2, 3] the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that an employee of the attorney general with authority only to collect delinquent Page 802 t......
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shain, No. 38066.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 12, 1942
    ...absent substantial evidence to that effect. That portion of respondents' opinion holding that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a 165 S.W.2d 432 recovery for permanent injuries conflicts with the rulings made in the cases Respondents' opinion also mentioned that the Service Company h......
  • State v. Gardner, No. 6737.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 10, 1947
    ...the organization of the district or the rights of the other relators to act as directors. State ex rel. v. Wilkie Land Co., Mo. App., 165 S.W.2d 432; State ex rel. Black v. Taylor, 208 Mo. 442, 106 S.W. 1023, 13 Ann.Cas. 1058; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. Ryan v. Huffman et al., Mo.App., 2......
  • State ex rel. Crist v. Nationwide Financial Corp. of Missouri, No. 40900
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 10, 1979
    ...by real estate." Such dismissal represents a final appealable order. State on inf. of McKittrick ex rel. Handlan v. Wilkie Land Co., 165 S.W.2d 432 The statutory provisions relevant to our decision are as follows: Section 408.030. Interest, maximum rate allowed . . . . 1. After January 9, 1......
  • State ex rel. Eagleton v. Hall, No. 10
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1965
    ...empowered to waive the state's immunity. In State on inf. of McKittrick, Attorney General, ex rel. Handlan v. Wilkie Land Co., Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 432, 435[2, 3] the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that an employee of the attorney general with authority only to collect delinquent Page 802 t......

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