The State ex rel. Terminal Railroad Association v. Tracy

• Decision Date: 24 October 1911
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION v. DANIEL O'CONNELL TRACY, JUDGE, and CITY of ST. LOUIS
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

140 S.W. 888

237 Mo. 109

THE STATE ex rel. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION v. DANIEL O'CONNELL TRACY, JUDGE, and CITY of ST. LOUIS

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 24, 1911

Writ denied.

T. M Pierce and J. L. Howell for relator.

The preliminary writ in prohibition having issued as an exercise of discretion by this court, this case should be decided upon its merits, in the furtherance of justice. According to the authorities of this State and recognized text-writers, a writ in prohibition will be ordered by a superior court to curb and restrain a lower court in the following instances: First When the lower court has no jurisdiction; Second, When the lower court is proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction Third, When the instrumentalities of the lower court are being used for purposes of oppression, and the jurisdiction of the court abused. The most familiar example of the first ground for prohibition is when the legislative authority which the lower court has assumed as a predicate for action, is unconstitutional and void. State ex rel. v. Weithaupt, 133 S.W. 329. An example of the second ground for prohibition is when a court attempts to appoint a receiver in a case not justified by law. Railroad v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230; State ex rel. v. Ross, 122 Mo. 435; State ex rel. v. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 435. An example of the third ground for prohibition is when a court permits multitudinous and innumerable prosecutions to be urged for purposes of coercion and embarrassment. State ex rel. v. Eby, 170 Mo. 526.

Lambert E. Walther and William E. Baird for respondents.

(1) Where the inferior court has jurisdiction over the class of cases to which the pending case belongs, prohibition will not lie, unless it appears that the court has abused its powers or has entertained the case for improper purposes. High, Extra. Remedies (3 Ed.), sec. 767; State ex rel. v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 7; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331; Delaney v. Police Court, 167 Mo. 679; State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14; State ex rel. v. Ross, 122 Mo. 435. (2) Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts and to determine whether or not they are sufficient to invoke the exercise of that power. Foltz v. Railroad, 60 F. 318; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182. (3) "If the inferior court has jurisdiction over the class of cases to which the pending case belongs, it has the power to decide whether the petition does or does not state a cause of action, and the mere failure of a petition to state a cause of action or the defective statement of a good cause of action, in no way affects the jurisdiction of the court." High, Extra. Remedies (3 Ed.), sec. 767a; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; Dowdy v. Wamble, 110 Mo. 285; State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 339; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182. (4) Although police courts have limited jurisdiction, yet when they are once possessed of jurisdiction, the same presumption as to their conduct is indulged as is accorded courts of general jurisdiction. Delaney v. Police Court, 167 Mo. 679; Ellis v. Jones, 51 Mo. 186; Wertheimer v. Mayor, 29 Mo. 254. (5) Assuming, however, that jurisdiction is determined solely by the sufficiency of the petition or information, the informations in question state a cause of action, because Sec. 1224 of the revised ordinances prohibits any obstruction in a street which is not authorized by ordinance and is not incident to the ordinary uses of a street, and the operation of steam railroad trains over streets is not one of the ordinary uses of such streets. Sherlock v. Railroad, 142 Mo. 172.

KENNISH, J. Graves and Lamm, JJ., dissent.

OPINION

In Banc

Prohibition.

KENNISH J. --

This is an original proceeding in prohibition brought by the relator, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, against the respondents, Daniel O'Connell Tracy, Judge of the First District Police Court of the city of St. Louis, and the city of St. Louis. Relator filed its petition in this court on the 28th day of June, 1910. A preliminary rule in prohibition was issued against respondents as prayed and made returnable to the October term, 1910. In due time the respondents filed their return to the writ. The relator moved for judgment on the pleadings and the cause being thus at issue is submitted for decision.

The pleadings are lengthy and we do not deem it necessary that they should be set forth in this statement. The facts determinative of the case stand admitted by the respondents' return and by the relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The allegations of the petition are substantially as follows: That relator is a railway corporation, organized under the laws of this State, and in accordance with said laws and the ordinances of the city of St. Louis, is engaged in the business of a terminal railroad company within the limits of said city, receiving, transporting and delivering cars and trains of cars from the various railway companies connected with its terminal lines, and in switching cars to and from industries and manufacturing companies within said city and to and from the Union Station, which station is owned and controlled by relator; that the respondent, the city of St. Louis, is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under a special charter adopted by its citizens in accordance with the Constitution and laws of this State; that the respondent Tracy, at the times mentioned, was and is acting justice of the First District Police Court of said city, possessing jurisdiction of all suits for the recovery of any fine, forfeiture or penalty imposed for the violation of any ordinance of said city. That there are pending before respondent Tracy, as acting justice of said police court, against relator, about two hundred separate cases for alleged violations of a certain ordinance, instituted by the respondent city and set for trial; that seventeen cases for such alleged violations of said ordinance have been prosecuted to final judgment against relator in said police court and fines imposed amounting to the total sum of seven thousand and fifty dollars, from which judgments appeals have been taken to the court of criminal correction of said city; that in some of the cases so appealed to the latter court judgments have been rendered against relator and fines imposed, aggregating the sum of eighteen hundred dollars; that all of said prosecutions are based upon alleged violations of ordinance No. 22902, sec. 1224, of the ordinances of said city, which section is as follows:

"Whoever shall himself, or by another, place upon any highway or other public place any obstruction not authorized by ordinance, or make any excavation in such place without lawful authority, or displace or remove any stones, stakes or other landmark placed by any officer of this city under authority thereof, or injure or deface any property, or violate any provisions of this ordinance for violation of which no specific penalty is provided, shall forfeit and pay not less than ten dollars."

That said prosecutions were instituted by the city attorney of the respondent city by filing informations identical in form, except where there is a difference in the streets alleged to have been obstructed, and that many of the informations relate to the same streets and portions thereof; that the said informations, omitting caption and signature, are in the following form, to-wit:

"Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a Corporation. To the City of St. Louis, Dr.

"To five hundred dollars, for the violation of an ordinance of said city, entitled 'An ordinance in revision of the General Ordinances of the City of St. Louis, being ordinance No. 22,902, Section 1224, Approved March 19, 1907.'

"In this, to-wit:

"In the City of St. Louis and State of Missouri, on the day of , 1909, and on divers other days and times prior thereto, the said Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a corporation, did then and there place and cause to be placed upon the public highway, known as street, at or near City Block , an obstruction not authorized by ordinance consisting of engines, cars and trains of cars operated and run over tracks lying across street aforesaid.

"Contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided."

It is further alleged that no charge or allegation is contained in any of said informations that the tracks of relator were not laid, constructed or maintained upon or across said streets with authority of law and with the consent of said city; that there is not now and was not at any of the times mentioned any ordinance of said city forbidding the operation or movement of engines, cars or trains of cars across any street of said city, as appears from the printed and published ordinances of said city, which ordinances are exhibited with and made a part of the petition; that the said city has now printed one thousand blank informations and is filling and filing the same and if not prohibited from so doing by this court will continue to file other and further informations of the same character and will continue such prosecutions, to the great and irreparable injury of the relator and to the destruction of its business; that relator has presented the jurisdictional questions against said prosecutions both to said police court and to the court of criminal correction and its motions and objections have been overruled and disregarded, and that the respondent court being without jurisdiction in the premises, is wrongfully, illegally and oppressively asserting and exercising jurisdiction in such causes against relator's constitutional rights and will continue to do so...