The State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 12 July 1915
• Citation: 178 S.W. 129,265 Mo. 646
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. JOHN T. BARKER, Attorney-General, Appellant, v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

178 S.W. 129

265 Mo. 646

THE STATE ex rel. JOHN T. BARKER, Attorney-General, Appellant, v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 12, 1915 ^[*]

Editorial Note:

This Pagination of this case accurately reflects the pagination of the original published, though it may appears out of sequence.

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. -- Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge.

Affirmed.

John T Barker, Attorney-General, and W. T. Rutherford, Lee B. Ewing T. J. Higgs and S. P. Howell, Assistant Attorneys-General for appellant; W. M. Williams, W. M. Fitch and J. P. Gilmore of counsel.

(1) It is fundamental, in law and equity, that where a party to an action obtains a rule, order, judgment or decree in his favor, and under or by means of it secures money or property and afterwards such rule, order, judgment or decree is set aside, or reversed, then such party must restore or return all money or property received thereunder or thereby. The defendant, therefore, upon the reversal of its decree in the Federal court, under and by means of which it was enabled to charge and collect the excess charges sued for, became obligated to refund or restore the same, and an action for money had and received, or in the nature thereof, lies therefor. 3 Cyc. 462, 469; 18 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 871; 2 Freeman on Judgments (4 Ed.), secs. 481, 482; 1 Beach on Injunctions 348; Spelling on Injunctions and Other Extraordinary Remedies, sec. 1096; 1 Joyce on Injunctions, 525; Carson v. Suggett, 34 Mo. 364; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo. 416; Railroad v. Brown, 43 Mo. 294; Marshall v. Allenberg, 100 Mo. 337; Colburn v. Yantis, 176 Mo. 670; Board of Trustees v. Fry, 192 Mo. 552; Lanyon v. Chesney, 209 Mo. 1; Turner v. Edmonsten, 210 Mo. 411; St. Louis v. Gaslight Co., 70 Mo. 69; St. Louis v. Gaslight Co., 80 Mo. 349; Haebler v. Meyers, 132 N.Y. 363; Wangelin v. Goe, 50 Ill. 459; Railroad v. Taylor, 134 Ill. 603; Herrington v. Herrington, 11 Ill.App. 121; Starke v. Lewis, 23 Miss. 151; Shoe Co. v. Kaiser, 108 Ga. 767; New York v. Brown, 179 N.Y. 303; Lumber Co. v. Dardell, 84 Ark. 140; Pulteney v. Warren, 6 Ves., Jr., 73; Railroad v. North Little Rock, 79 Ark. 48; Cumming v. Mugge, 94 Ill. 186; Vanzandt v. Mining Co., 2 McCr. 642; Railroad v. Barker, 210 F. 902; Hawkes v. Champion, Cary, 51; Douche v. Perrot, Cary, 63; Hill v. Portman, Cary, 140; Bank v. Bank, 6 Pet. 8; Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216; Williams v. Simmons, 22 Ala. 425; Marks v. Cowles, 61 Ala. 299; Ex parte Walter Brothers, 89 Ala. 237; McJilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486; Martin v. Woodruff, 2 Ind. 237; Zimmerman v. Bank, 56 Iowa 133; Parry v. Tupper, 71 N.C. 385; Lytle v. Lytle, 94 N.C. 522; Fleming v. Riddick, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 272; Hier v. Brewing Co., 60 Neb. 320; Thompson v. Reasoner, 122 Ind. 454; United States v. Rithstein, 187 F. 268; Brown v. Trust Co., 193 F. 672; Crocker v. Clements, 23 Ala. 296; Dupuy v. Roebuck, 7 Ala. 484; Simmons v. Price, 18 Ala. 405; Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 667; Raun v. Reynolds, 18 Cal. 275; Ward v. Sherman, 155 Cal. 287; Chambers v. Vandler, 94 Ga. 210; Warren v. Bunch, 80 Ga. 124; Hays v. Carroll, 70 Ill. 666; McElwee v. Eice, 80 Ill.App. 338; Smith v. Dent, 83 Ind. 87; Hess v. Deppen, 125 Ky. 424; Mooney v. Corcoran, 15 La. 46; Bryant v. Fairchilds, 51 Me. 149; Delano v. Wilde, 11 Gray (Mass.), 17; Cummings v. Noyes, 10 Mass. 434; Peck v. McLean, 36 Minn. 228; Lipp v. Hunt, 29 Neb. 256; Thompson v. Carroll, 36 N.H. 21; Eames v. Stevens, 26 N.H. 117; Murrary v. Wiener, 32 N.H. 361; Scott v. Conover, 10 N. J. L. 61; Murray v. Berdell, 98 N.Y. 480; Britton v. Phillips, 24 How. Pr. 111; Rollins v. Henry, 77 N.C. 538; Boyett v. Vaughn, 86 N.C. 725; Bickett v. Garner, 31 Ohio St. 28; Metschen v. Grant County, 36 Ore. 117; McFadden v. Swinerton, 36 Ore. 336; Beuscoten v. Long, 167 Pa. St. 595; Whitrell v. Peck, 176 Pa. St. 170; Caruthers v. Caruthers, 2 Lea (Tenn.), 71; Gates v. Vrinkley, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 710; Perticles v. Carpenter, 53 Tex. 23; Standard v. Brownlow, 3 Munf. (Va.) 229; Keck v. Allender, 42 W.Va. 420; Singly v. Warren, 18 Wash. 434. (2) Inasmuch as the injunction in the Federal court did not and could not compel or direct the defendant, as complainant therein, to collect the rates or charges in excess of the maximum statutes involved, during the continuance of the injunction, such excess rates or charges so collected did not flow, nor constitute damages resulting from, the injunction as such, and the right to recover them is not destroyed by the existence of such injunction, nor limited by any bond that may have been given in connection therewith. St. Louis v. Gaslight Co., 70 Mo. 121; St. Louis v. Gaslight Co., 2 Mo. 349; New York v. Brown, 179 N.Y. 303; Lumber Co. v. Dardell, 84 Ark. 140; Haebler v. Meyers, 132 N.Y. 363; Railway & Electric Co. v. North Little Rock, 76 Ark. 48; Pulteney v. Warren, 6 Ves., Jr., 73; Railroad v. Railroad Commission, 196 F. 558; Railroad v. Taylor, 134 Ill. 603; Cummings v. Mugge, 94 Ill. 186; Wangelin v. Goe, 50 Ill. 450; Herrington v. Herrington, 11 Ill.App. 121; Vanzandt v. Mining Co., 2 McCr. 642; Starke v. Lewis, 23 Miss. 151; Landis v. Wolf, 206 Ill. 372; Shoe Factory v. Kaiser, 108 Ga. 767; Grant v. Grant, 3 Sim. 340; Anonymous, 2 Chan. Cas. 217; Hawkes v. Champion, Cary, 36; Dowche v. Perrot, Cary, 45; Hill v. Portman, Cary, 98; Sugg v. Thrasher, 30 Miss. 135; Work v. Harper, 31 Miss. 107; Marshall v. Minter, 43 Miss. 666; Tift v. Railroad, 159 F. 555; Tift v. Railroad, 123 F. 789; Tift v. Railroad, 138 F. 753; McGrew v. Railroad, 258 Mo. 23; McGrew v. Railroad, 230 Mo. 496; McGrew v. Railroad, 177 Mo. 533; Transportation Co. v. Sweetzer, 25 W.Va. 434; Keiserman v. Railroad, 63 Iowa 732; Peters v. Railroad, 42 Ohio St. 275; Graham v. Railroad, 53 Wis. 473; Railroad v. Steiner, 61 Ala. 559; Railroad v. Barker, 210 F. 902; Coal & Coke Co. v. Conley, 67 W.Va. 129; Willcox v. Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19; United States ex rel. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366; Reagan v. Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362. (3) The action for money had and received, or an action in the nature thereof, is broad enough and does permit a recovery by shippers and passengers and persons paying the excess charges, in any view that may be taken of the case. 2 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 1016; 2 Story's Eq. Jur. (13 Ed.), secs. 1255-6, pp. 604-5; Moses v. McFerlan, 2 Burr. 1005; Banking Co. v. Commission Co., 195 Mo. 262; Henderson v. Koenig, 192 Mo. 690; Harrison v. Lakeman, 189 Mo. 581; Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Bank, 116 Mo. 558; Sanitary Co. v. Reed, 179 Mo.App. 164; Early v. Railroad, 167 Mo.App. 252; Paper Co. v. Publishing Co., 156 Mo.App. 187; Jenkins v. Clopton, 141 Mo.App. 74; Stout v. Hardware Co., 131 Mo.App. 520; Crigler v. Duncan, 121 Mo.App. 381; Harrison v. Murphy, 106 Mo.App. 465; Richardson v. Drug Co., 92 Mo.App. 515; Kelley v. Osborn, 86 Mo.App. 239; Deal v. Bank, 79 Mo.App. 262; Clark v. Bank, 57 Mo.App. 277; Coal Co. v. Slevin, 56 Mo.App. 111; Transportation Co. v. Sweetzer, 25 W.Va. 434; Peters v. Railroad, 42 Ohio St. 275. (4) The entire amount collected in excess of the statutory rates, during the pendency of the injunction in the Federal court, constitutes and creates a trust fund in the hands of the defendant railroad company, for which it must account and pay to the beneficiaries thereof in this proceeding, or, in any event, that portion thereof that belongs to the State. 2 Story's Eq. Jur. (13 Ed.), sec. 1255; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. 2007, secs. 1044, 1045, 1047, 1053; 39 Cyc. 179, 190; Loring v. St. Louis, 80 Mo. 461; Banking Co. v. Commission Co., 195 Mo. 262; York v. Bank, 105 Mo.App. 127; Clark v. Bank, 57 Mo.App. 277; Deal v. Bank, 79 Mo.App. 262; Harrison v. Murphy, 106 Mo.App. 465; Bunel v. Nest, 203 Mo. 429; Ward v. Sherman, 155 Cal. 287; Blair v. Turnpike, 67 Ky. 157; Commonwealth v. Scott, 112 Ky. 243; Tift v. Railroad, 138 F. 753; Tift v. Railroad, 159 F. 557; Barnes v. Thuet, 116 Iowa 359; Bank v. Kimball, 1 S.D. 388; Newton v. Porter, 69 N.Y. 133; People v. Houghtaling, 7 Cal. 348; Thompson v. Thompson, 107 Ala. 163; Independent District v. King, 80 Iowa 497; Plow Co. v. Lemp, 80 Iowa 722; Smith v. Bank, 107 Iowa 620; Bank v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 546; Chapman v. Douglas County, 107 U.S. 348; Aldrich v. Bank, 176 U.S. 618; United States v. Bank, 96 U.S. 301; Louisiana v. Wood, 102 U.S. 292; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487; Read v. Plattmouth, 107 U.S. 568; Bank v. Townsend, 139 U.S. 67; Transportation Co. v. Pullman Car Co., 139 U.S. 24; Cotton Mills v. Mills, 147 Mass. 768; Perkins v. Boothly, 71 Me. 91; Blake v. Railroad, 19 Minn. 418; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U.S. 217; East, etc., Co. v. County, 102 U.S. 277; State v. Railroad, 66 Me. 512; Lawrence v. Railroad, 32 La. Ann. 427; State ex inf. v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687; Rollins v. Mitchell, 52 Minn. 41; Kroll v. Coach, 45 Ore. 459; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U.S. 122; Parrish v. Parrish, 33 Ore. 486; Savage v. Johnson, 125 Ala. 673; Kent v. Dean, 128 Ala. 600; Savings & Loan Association v. Campbell, 43 L. R. A. 622; Angle v. Railroad, 151 U.S. 1; Morris v. Vyse, 154 Mich. 253; Boynton v. Miller, 144 Mo. 681; Hudson v. Wright, 204 Mo. 412; Couch v. Harp, 201 Mo. 457; Roughnelle v. Strode, 126 Mo.App. 348; Lightfoot v. Davis, 198 N.Y. 961; State v. Railroad, 246 Ill. 188; Stock & Grain Exchange v. Bendinger, 109 F. 926; Bank v. Wakefield, 149 Cal. 558; Lakin v. Mining Co., 25 F. 337; Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., 54 F. 50; Bourland v. County, 16 Ill. 538; Burnett v. Bank, 38 Mich. 630; People v. Bank, 96 N.Y. 32; Bank v. King, 57 Pa. St. 202; Bank v. Gas Co., 36 Minn. 75; Peak v. Elliott, 30 Kan. 156; Waterbury v. Barry, 130 N.Y.S. 517; Robertson v. Board, 84 Kan. 52; Parker v. Burwell, 68 Wash. 386; Schofield v. Baker, 212 F. 505; Druckfield v. Harris, 147 N.Y.S. 298; Finnegan v. McGuffog, 203 N.Y. 342; ...