The State ex rel. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. Eby

• Decision Date: 10 December 1902
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASSOCIATION et al. v. EBY, Judge
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

71 S.W. 52

170 Mo. 497

THE STATE ex rel. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASSOCIATION et al. v. EBY, Judge

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 10, 1902

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Rule made absolute.

Tapley & Fitzgerrell and E. W. Major for relators.

(1) On April 15, 1901, these relators complied with the provisions of an act passed by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri during the session of 1901, known as the "Beer Compromise Act," and paid into the State Treasury for the benefit of the state revenue fund the sum of $ 191,250 being ten cents on each and every barrel of beer of the capacity of thirty-one gallons and in the same proportion for any other quantity of beer sold for consumption in the State of Missouri after September 20, 1899, and prior to March 19, 1901; said payment of said money includes and pays the inspection fees on all the packages or cases of beer recited in the said 5,000 alleged informations now pending in Pike county, Missouri, against relators. A full compliance with the said Beer Compromise Act is admitted by respondent. Having complied with the requirements and provisions of said compromise act, the State of Missouri can not proceed to prosecute these relators for fines, penalties and forfeitures alleged to have accrued in the way and during the time named in said compromise act. Relators in good faith complied with the provisions of said act and paid the fees therein required to be paid, which includes and pays inspection fees on the beer described in said informations. The State having induced relators to pay said sum into the State Treasury for the benefit of the state revenue fund and in payment of inspection fees, can not take advantage of its own contract. The State can not lay a snare and pitfall for the citizen and take advantage of its own contract and agreement, after having induced the citizen in good faith to act thereon. (2) Relators are entitled to have the whole matter passed upon in these proceedings and be relieved and protected from the expense, vexation and annoyance of defending in the said 5,000 prosecutions pending against the various relators herein. The prosecutions are without merit. This court has jurisdiction in the issuance of original writs and should grant the equitable relief prayed for, and the temporary or provisional writs, heretofore issued, should be made final and absolute. The prevention of vexatious litigation and a multiplicity of suits constitute a favorite ground for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Coal Company v. St. Louis, 130 Mo. 323; Michael v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 616; Damschroeder v. Thias, 51 Mo. 100; Biddle v. Ramsey, 52 Mo. 153; Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550; Swope v. Weller, 119 Mo. 556; State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 478; High on Injunctions (3 Ed.), p. 12; Mayor, etc., v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217; Davis v. Fasig, 128 Ind. 271; Rushville v. Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575; Railroad v. Mayor, etc., 54 N.Y. 159; 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), par. b, 354; 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), par. 12, 373; Bishop v. Rosenbaum, 58 Miss. 84; Railroad v. Dey, 1 L. R. A. 744; Chicago v. Collins, 49 L. R. A. 408. (3) Respondent's second ground, that there is a defect of parties, in that they should have been styled plaintiffs and defendant rather than relators and respondent is entirely without merit, this court having decided adversely to respondent's contention. (4) As to the third ground of demurrer, that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of misdemeanor cases except such derivative jurisdiction as it may acquire by appeal from the inferior courts of this State: The Supreme Court under our Constitution has a general superintending control over all inferior courts and has power to issue original remedial writs and to hear and determine the same. Its jurisdiction does not depend upon the fact that it would have appellate jurisdiction in the same matter. State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217; State ex rel. v. Philips, 97 Mo. 341.

Pearson & Pearson, J. W. Jump and J. D. Hostetter for respondent.

(1) Whenever any errors of an inferior court may be reviewed and corrected by the ordinary mode, as by appeal or writ of error, then the writ of prohibition should not and can not lawfully or rightfully be resorted to. Martin v Sloan, 98 Mo. 252; State v. Klein, 116 Mo. 259; State ex rel. v. Fox, 85 Mo. 61; State ex rel. v. Anthony, 65 Mo.App. 554; State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 340; State ex rel. v. Burckhart, 87 Mo. 533; State ex rel. v. Smith, 104 Mo. 422; State ex rel. v. St. Louis Court of Appeals, 99 Mo. 216; State ex rel. v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; Postlewaite v. Ghiselen, 97 Mo. 424; Wilson v. Berkstresser, 45 Mo. 283; State ex rel. v. Harrison, 53 Mo.App. 346; State ex rel. v. Valliant, 123 Mo. 524; High on Extra. Remedies, secs. 767, 771; Davison v. Hough, 165 Mo. 561; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 164 Mo. 347; State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 445; State ex rel. v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 483; Railroad v. Smith, 154 Mo. 321; State ex rel. v. Withrow, 141 Mo. 79; State ex rel. v. Ross, 136 Mo. 271; Railroad v. Wear, 135 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Shannon, 130 Mo. 139; 9 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (1 Ed.), p. 267. (2) These proceedings in prohibition are erroneously brought in the name of the State of Missouri at the relation, etc., and practically amount to a suit by the State of Missouri against the State of Missouri, seeking to restrain the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State. Under the statute, the moving party should be plaintiff and the adverse party should be defendant, and this point is specially raised by the demurrer. R. S. 1899, sec. 4450; State ex rel. v. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 449; Railroad v. Wear, 135 Mo. 269.

PETITION.

The petition in this proceeding, referred to in the opinion, omitting caption and signatures, is as follows:

"Comes now the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, Adolphus Busch George K. Busch and J. D. Bowman and give the court to understand and be informed that the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association is now and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was a business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, and located in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and engaged in said city in the manufacture and sale of beer; that Adolphus Busch, George K. Busch are and at all the times hereinafter mentioned were residents and citizens of the said city of St. Louis and officers of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association; that J. D. Bowman is and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was a resident and citizen of the city of Louisiana in Pike county, Missouri.

"That the Honorable David H. Eby is and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, of which circuit Pike county in said State is a part, and that he is the judge of and presides in the circuit court of said Pike county and as such has taken cognizance and now entertains jurisdiction of 1,203 alleged informations against the relators for alleged violations of the act approved May 4, 1899, 'Creating the office of inspector of beer and malt liquors of the State and providing for the inspection of beer and malt liquors manufactured and sold in this State,' and is about to try these relators as defendants under said alleged informations.

"Relators further give the court to understand and be informed that one John W. Jump who was at the time prosecuting attorney of said Pike county did on the fifteenth day of March, 1901, file against these relators as defendants 1,203 informations for alleged violations of the act of the Legislature of the State of Missouri, hereinafter referred to.

"That in filing said informations the said John W. Jump, prosecuting attorney of Pike county, at the time used printed blanks and that all of the said 1,203 informations filed by him against these relators are of the same form, substance and tenor, excepting only that they differ in the allegation of the date of the sale of the beer alleged in said informations to have been made, and in the name of the party to whom the beer was alleged to have been sold. That with the exception of the date of the alleged sale and the name of the party to whom the sale was alleged to have been made, said informations were in the following form:" (Here follows information found on page 510 of this volume).

"And the relators further give the court to understand and be informed that the relators, the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, Adolphus Busch and George K. Busch have made no sales of beer in Pike county, Missouri, and that they have not nor either of them been guilty of any violation in Pike county, Missouri, of any provision of said act of the Legislature hereinbefore referred to; that said circuit court of Pike county, Missouri, has in fact no jurisdiction of any of the last-named relators or of the supposed charges against them in said several alleged informations and that neither of the said last-named relators made sales or any of them alleged to have been made in the said several informations.

"Relators further give the court to understand and be informed that the said circuit court of Pike county is advised and it appears from the records that the relator J. D. Bowman is not a brewer nor a manufacturer of beer, and that he did not brew or cause said beer described in said informations or any of them to be brewed and was not therefore by law required to cause said beer to be inspected or to pay the inspection fee or to have or cause a label or certificate of the state inspector of beer and malt liquors to be attached to any of the packages containing said beer or any of it; that under the law as interpreted by this court the inspection of beer is to be made at the place of...