Thomas v. Mead

• Decision Date: 30 September 1865
• Citation: 36 Mo. 232
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES S. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW W. MEAD AND JAMES C. MOODEY, Defendants.^a1

36 Mo. 232

JAMES S. THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v.ANDREW W. MEAD AND JAMES C. MOODEY, Defendants.^a1

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Special September Term, 1865.

At the special term, held in September, A. D. 1865, the plaintiff filed the following petition:

James S. Thomas, plaintiff, v. Andrew W. Mead and James C. Moodey, defendants.--In the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.--Special Term, Saturday, September 23, 1865.

Now at this day comes James S. Thomas and states to the court here, that on or about the 13th day of June, 1865, one Andrew W. Mead filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, a petition in the nature of a petition for injunction against this petitioner and others, wherein and whereby the said St. Louis Circuit Court was prayed that the defendants in said petition named might be enjoined, restrained and prohibited against touching, handling, seizing, taking, or carrying away any of the records, books and papers of this honorable court, and the seal of said court, without the consent of him, the said Andrew W. Mead. And this petitioner further shows that on the said last named day, the Honorable James C. Moodey, Judge of the said Circuit Court of said County, on the motion of the said Andrew W. Mead, and on hearing and considering the matters stated in said petition, made an order in the nature of a restraining order, whereby the petitioner and the other defendants named in said petition were enjoined, prohibited and restrained according to the prayer of the said petitioner. And the said petitioner further shows that afterwards, to-wit, on the 17th day of said month, in term of the said Circuit Court, upon affidavit of the said Andrew W. Mead, made and filed in said cause, alleging that the said defendants and other parties named in said affidavit had been guilty of disobeying and violating said injunction, issued an order directed to him and to the parties named in said petition and affidavit, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them for contempt in disobeying and violating the said injunction, and said parties were required to appear in said court on the first day of the then next m of said court to answer the said alleged contempt. And the petitioner suggests that all the proceedings aforesaid are in contempt of the State of Missouri and against the Constitution and laws thereof, and to the manifest damage, prejudice and grievance of him the said petitioner; that, by the Constitution and nature of this court, this court is itself, and of necessity must be, the sole and exclusive tribunal to determine who, by the law of the land, is the proper custodian of the records, books and papers of this court, and the seal thereof, and that if the petitioner and other parties named in the said petition and affidavit are guilty, or have been in anywise guilty of, or have conspired to seize, take, and carry away the records, books and papers, and seal of this court, that this court hath full jurisdiction to prevent and restrain the same by proper order, process and decree; and that neither the Circuit Court of St. Louis county and no other inferior tribunal hath, by law, right or authority to determine who is entitled to the custody of the books, records, papers and seal belonging and pertaining to this honorable court. That the proceedings instituted and followed as aforesaid are a direct encroachment upon the authority and jurisdiction of this court, and are in contempt of this honorable court, its authority and dignity, and that under the Constitution and the laws it is made the care of this court that the said Circuit Court, as well as all other inferior courts, keep within the bounds and limits of the several jurisdictions prescribed to them by the laws and statutes of the State: Wherefore, your petitioner prays the remedy of the People's writ of Prohibition to the said Andrew W. Mead, and to the said James C. Moodey, to be directed to prohibit them from pursuing and holding the pleas aforesaid, the premises aforesaid anywise concerning farther before the said Circuit Court. And the said petitioner herewith exhibits to this court an exemplification, under the seal of the said Circuit Court and hand of the clerk thereof, of the record and proceedings had in the said court in the said cause in establishment of the matters stated in his petition.

By HENRY A. CLOVER, Attorney.

R. M. FIELD, SAMUEL KNOX,

of Counsel.

Andrew W. Mead, plaintiff, v. David Wagner, Walter L. Lovelace, E. H. E. Jamieson, Ferdinand Meier, Nathaniel Clark, James S. Thomas, Bernard Laibold, A. R. Bowman, and John C. Vogel, defendants.--In the St. Louis Circuit Court, September Term, 1865.

The plaintiff, Andrew W. Mead, states that for a long time he has been and now is the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

That as such clerk he is lawfully entitled to the custody of all books, records and papers belonging to said court, and to the business and jurisdiction and authority thereof as well as the seal of said court. That said books, records and paper are of inestimable value to the State and the people of Missouri, and to many persons beyond the limits of the State.

That said books, records and papers contain the evidence of rights and titles to every species of property, and have been intended by the laws to be perpetually preserved for the public good.

That it is the duty of the plaintiff to preserve and main a inviolate all said books, records and papers, and seal, and that no lawful authority exists in any person or persons to disturb his possession or control of the same while he remains clerk of said court.

That he has been informed and believes and verily fears that the defendants have conspired together to seize and carry away from him and from his possession all said records, books and papers, and seal; he says the defendants Wagner and Lovelace, as he has been informed and believes, have advised the defendant Bowman to set up some right to the possession and control thereof, though in fact said Bowman has no such power, authority or right; that the defendants Clark, Jamieson, Thomas, and Meier, as he verily believes, have been solicited to aid in the unlawful seizure and taking away from him said records, books, seal and papers, and he believes that they have colluded and conspired with the other defendants to effect said seizure and dispossession, and he verily believes and fears that the defendants are about forcibly to seize and take and carry away unlawfully from him and from his possession and control the said books, records and papers, and the seal of the said court, and that they will do so unless restrained and enjoined therefrom by the order of this court. The plaintiff states that the said records, books, papers, and seal of court, are so important to the public interests, they have not that peculiar value which can be estimated in damages, and that it is not the matter of damages to be recovered from the wrongdoers in such case to which he is advised he should look for redress, but that his duty is to prevent the intended wrong.

And now, therefore, and forasmuch as there is no remedy adequate in the premises save injunction, he prays that said defendants and each of them, and all others though not specially mentioned by name herein, may be enjoined, restrained and prohibited against touching, handling, seizing, taking, or carrying away any of said records, books and papers, and seal of court, without consent of the plaintiff: and that the court will grant to the plaintiff such other and further relief as may be right and proper in the premises, &c.

GLOVER & SHEPLEY, for Plaintiff,

With whom are

SHARP & BROADHEAD, and THOS. T. GANTT.

On the giving of bond, the following writ of injunction was issued:

The State of Missouri to David Wagner, Walter L. Lovelace, E. H. E. Jamieson, Ferdinand Meier, Nathaniel Clark, James S. Thomas, Bernard Laibold, A. R. Bowman and John C. Vogel, and all other persons combining or confederating with them. You and all persons combining or confederating with you, are hereby enjoined, prohibited and restrained against seizing, taking or carrying away, handling, or in any manner meddling with any of the books, records or papers of the Supreme Court of Missouri, or the seal of said court, now in the possession or control of Andrew W. Mead, Esq., clerk of said court, without the permission or consent of said Mead; and herein you will fail not, until the further order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county.

And on the same day a writ of summons was issued to the parties made defendant.

On the 17th July, 1865, the following affidavit was filed:

Andrew W. Mead v. David Wagner et als.--In Circuit Court, St. Louis county, Mo.

The plaintiff Andrew W. Mead, states that on the 13th June, 1865, the injunction prayed for in this cause issued. That after the same was served on David Wagner. Walter L. Lovelace, Nathaniel Clark, Ferdinand Meier, and James S. Thomas, they, said Wagner, Lovelace, Meier, Clark and Thomas, colluding and conspiring with the other persons hereinafter mentioned--to-wit, on the 14th June, 1865--did violate and disobey said injunction by seizing, taking and carrying away illegally and forcibly the books, records and papers, and seal therein mentioned, without permission or consent of affiant; and after full notice of existence of said injunction, and the service thereof had come to the knowledge of R. M. Field, Henry A. Clover, Samuel Knox, E. H. E. Jamieson. Thomas C. Fletcher, and D.C. Coleman, the said Field, Clover, Jamieson, Fletcher, and Coleman, on day and year last aforesaid, confederating and colluding with the persons first mentioned, did disobey and violate said injunction by counselling and advising the same, and aiding and abetting the violation thereof; and said Fletcher and Coleman did by force and arms disobey and violate the same as aforesaid; and further affiant saith not.

The plaintiff, Andrew W....