Westmoreland Specialty Co. v. Missouri Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1912
• Parties: WESTMORELAND SPECIALTY CO. v. MISSOURI GLASS CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

147 S.W. 482

WESTMORELAND SPECIALTY CO. v. MISSOURI GLASS CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 31, 1912.

1. COURTS (§ 231) — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

That an action for the price of goods sold by a foreign corporation presented matters pertaining to the construction and application of the federal anti-trust act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]) does not give the Missouri Supreme Court jurisdiction of an appeal involving less than $7,500, the pecuniary limit of the jurisdiction of the St. Louis Court of Appeals; the validity or constitutionality of that statute not being questioned.

2. COURTS (§ 231) — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

The Missouri Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal in an action brought by a foreign corporation involving less than the pecuniary limit of the St. Louis Court of Appeals' jurisdiction on the ground of controversy as to the constitutionality of Rev. St. 1909, § 3040, preventing suit by a foreign corporation which has not taken out a license in the state, where the trial court found that the statute did not apply because it did not appear that the sales made by plaintiff to defendant were made within the state, and no exception or appeal was taken from that ruling.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.

Action by the Westmoreland Specialty Company against the Missouri Glass Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, sued defendant, a home corporation, before a justice of the peace for the price of goods. The amount claimed to be due was $346.31. Defendant filed a formal answer containing a general denial, and the further defense that the plaintiff was a corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania, and was not authorized to transact business in this state at the time of sale and delivery of the goods to defendant, and hence could not maintain this suit; and for further defense alleged that at the time of the sale of said goods plaintiff was a member of an illegal pool, trust, or combine formed to restrain trade or competition in the manufacture, purchase, or sale of such products in the state of Missouri or elsewhere, setting out the members of the alleged combine, and alleged, further, that the aforesaid combine was in violation of the anti-trust statutes of the United States, known as the Sherman Act. This last defense the court sustained and rendered judgment in favor of defendant, from which this appeal has been duly taken.

E. T. & C. B. Allen, for appellant. Lubke & Lubke, for respondent.

BOND, C. (after stating the...