State v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Iron Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hearing .Judge. (1) The penalty clause of Sec. 3158, R. S. 1909, is invalid, and there being no other provision of law attempting to inflict a penalty for the alleged violation of said. section, the present action must fail, as only a penalty is sought to be recovered herein.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Iron Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hearing .Judge. (1) The penalty clause of Sec. 3158, R. S. 1909, is invalid, and there being no other provision of law attempting to inflict a penalty for the alleged violation of said. section, the present action must fail, as only a penalty is sought to be recovered herein. The Legislature is not bound to provide a penalty in cases of this character, but if it does attempt to do so, it must appear upon its face that said penalty is for the benefit of the school fund, or the matter will stand as though no penalty had been imposed. There is no…
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION.
LAMM, C. J.
Purpose of Statutory Penalty.
That the law necessarily involves the idea of punishment, and to that end employs language (the word “forfeit”) appropriate only to a penalty, that the penalty is directed to the punishment of a public wrong as contradistinguished from a private wrong (State ex rel. v. Warner, 197 Mo. l. c. 664), I think, is clear.
■That the “clear proceeds” of such penalty belong to the public school funds and that no such penalty can be created payable to any other object or to any person without violating the Constitution, is also clear. [Sec. 8,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. BockstruckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State ex rel. Rodes v. WarnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. CliffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. NewellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State ex rel. Clay County v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886