Stegall v. American Pigment & Chemical Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 16996.,16996.
• Citation: 263 Mo. 719,173 S.W. 674
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STEGALL v. AMERICAN PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO.

173 S.W. 674

263 Mo. 719

STEGALL v. AMERICAN PIGMENT & CHEMICAL CO.

No. 16996.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 4, 1915.

Motion to Set Aside Order Transferring to Court of Appeals Denied, February 23, 1915.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; George C. Hitchcock, Judge.

Action by Harry W. Stegall against the American Pigment & Chemical Company, a corporation. From an order overruling a motion to quash an execution, defendant brings error. Case transferred to the Court of Appeals by virtue of Rev. St. 1909, § 3938.

See, also, 150 Mo. App. 251, 130 S. W. 144.

This is a proceeding by writ of error to review the action of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in overruling a motion to quash an execution.

In June, 1908, Harry W. Stegall (defendant in error) instituted, before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis, a suit against the American Pigment & Chemical Company, a corporation (plaintiff in error), to recover judgment upon an account in the sum of $230, for services rendered. The defendant company appeared specially in the justice court and moved to quash the return made by a special constable in executing the writ of summons. The main point of attack was that the defendant company had no office in this state and was not doing business in this state at the time the summons was served upon its president. The motion to quash was overruled by the justice, and, the defendant company declining to appear further in the case, judgment by default was rendered for the amount claimed. The defendant company then appealed to the circuit court, and there the defendant company, again appearing specially, renewed its motion to quash the return upon substantially the same grounds as were advanced in the justice court. The circuit court permitted the special constable to amend his return. In passing upon the motion to quash, the circuit court heard testimony directed mainly to the issue as to whether the defendant company, at the time of the service of the summons upon its president, was "doing business in this state." After hearing the testimony, the court overruled the motion to quash, and thereafter, without further appearance upon the part of the defendant company, judgment was entered for the amount claimed. Thereafter the company, by writ of error, took the case for review to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, which court fully reviewed the errors assigned and, on June 28, 1910, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, as will appear from the opinion in said cause reported in 150 Mo. App. 251, 130 S. W. 144. Thereafter the defendant company applied to this court for a writ of prohibition, by which it sought to prohibit the judge of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis from enforcing said judgment. Among the grounds assigned as reason why the relief prayed should be granted was that the defendant was a nonresident corporation and was doing no business in this state at the time of the alleged service of summons. On November 27, 1911, court in banc delivered its opinion and rendered judgment in said cause, quashing the preliminary rule in prohibition and denying the permanent writ. See State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329, 141 S. W. 585. Thereafter on December 15, 1911, the defendant company filed in the circuit court, where the judgment was originally rendered, a motion to quash an execution which had been issued in said cause on December 7, 1911.

The motion to quash the execution alleged: First. That, at the time of service of said summons by the special constable, the company had no officer or agent in this state. Second. Said defendant was not served with process in this case in the manner required by the laws of this state. Third. The person served was not representing the defendant in this state in any official capacity. Fourth. Said judgment was entered against defendant before it had an opportunity to plead further. Fifth. The judgment upon which said execution was issued was rendered against defendant when the said defendant had not been served with process in the manner required by law, and that therefore said judgment violated defendant's rights under section 1, art. 14, of the Constitution of the United States, and section 30 of article 2 of the Constitution of the state of Missouri, in that it deprived defendant of its property without due process of law and the equal protection of the law. Sixth. Said judgment violated defendant's rights under section 15 of article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri in that it changed the law as it existed at the time of service of summons, by holding that the acts of defendant amounted to "doing business in this state," and that therefore the said judgment operated as a retrospective law.

A hearing was had, and the circuit court overruled the motion to quash. The...