St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Evans & Howard Fire Brick Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals, (1) Mandamus is not the proper remedy to correct an error, if error there was in this cause. The court below acted judicially in all matters pending before it, and it is not in the power of this court to review that action by mandamus. Railroad n.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals, (1) Mandamus is not the proper remedy to correct an error, if error there was in this cause. The court below acted judicially in all matters pending before it, and it is not in the power of this court to review that action by mandamus. Railroad n. LaeJcland, 25 Mo. 527; High on Extraordinary Remedies, secs. 156, 176, 177. Even when the court below refuses to act on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a statute, and Avhen the superior court decides the law to be constitutional. Smith v. Judges, 17 Cal. 547. (a) The question of right of appeal can be…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The case is this: On the eighth of June, 1883, the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company filed its petition to have certain lands, belonging to the Evans & Howard Fire Brick Company and the Missouri Fire Brick & Clay Company, condemned for the use of the railway company, under the statute in such case made and provided. The defendant, Austin R. Moore, was made a party merely as a trustee in a ■deed of trust made by the last named defendant to secure one of its debts. Summons was issued the same day, and duly served; and on July 6, three commissioners were appointed to assess the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. KirbySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Town of South Ottawa v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Groves v. SlaughterSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Fusz v. SpaunhorstSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. R. v. Campbell, Nelson & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Miller v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. HarlessIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Copeland v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. Chyo ChiagkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. BixmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.