Laymaster v. Goodin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Habeas Corpus. (1) The court should have sustained the demurrer to plaintiff’s petition on the ground that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the commission of a crime, and neither has it jurisdiction to enjoin the maintenance of a bawdyhouse, or any other house not of a public character.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. (1) The court should have sustained the demurrer to plaintiff’s petition on the ground that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the commission of a crime, and neither has it jurisdiction to enjoin the maintenance of a bawdyhouse, or any other house not of a public character. State ex rel. v. Canty, 207 Mo. 455; State ex rel. v. Lamb, 237 Mo. 457. (2) It was the duty of the court to pass upon petitioner’s application for a change of venue, and if it was found that all the requirements of the statute had been conformed to, then it became mandatory upon the court to…
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION.
BROWN, J.
— I concur in the conclusions reached by my learned brother Woodson, for the reason that in its suit against the petitioner the State is seeking to substitute the equity practice for the criminal law —a thing which the Constitution does not permit. A party whose property is being injured or destroyed by the criminal acts of another may enjoin such criminal acts, notwithstanding to do so amounts to enjoining the commission of a crime. [State ex rel. v. Schweickardt, 109 Mo. 496; State ex rel. v. Feitz, 174 Mo. App. 456.] Nevertheless it is not the theory of our…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Wood v. SchweickardtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State ex rel. Rucker v. FeitzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913