Berry v. Majestic Milling Co.

17 Citing cases

  1. Berry v. Majestic Milling Co.

    263 S.W. 406 (Mo. 1924)   Cited 15 times

    I.V. McPherson and J.A. Potter for respondent. The opinion of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. (1) The opinion in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 223 S.W. 738, was a judgment on the merits and a bar to this suit, is in direct conflict with the following controlling decisions of the Supreme Court: Ellington v. Crockett, 13 Mo. 72; Clemens v. Murphy, 40 Mo. 122; Wright v. Salisbury, 46 Mo. 26; Wells v. Moore, 49 Mo. 230; Spradling v. Conway, 51 Mo. 51; Short v. Taylor, 137 Mo. 517; Baldwin v. Davidson, 139 Mo. 126; Couch v. Harp, 201 Mo. 164; Womack v. St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467; Strottman v. Railroad, 228 Mo. 154; Johnson v. Railway, 243 Mo. 294; Ginnocchio v. Railroad, 264 Mo. 520. (2) The opinion, in holding that the former decision of the Supreme Court is a bar to the present suit, is in direct conflict with and a violation of Section 1329, Revised Statutes 1919. (3) The opinion, in holding that the former decision of the Supreme Court is a violation of the provisions of Sections 10 and 30 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri, in that this opinion denies justice to the respondent and denies him a hearing of his case on the merits an

  2. State ex Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance Authority

    364 Mo. 974 (Mo. 1954)   Cited 51 times
    In State ex rel. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth., 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44, 52[2] (banc 1954), the Court confronted the tension between Article I, § 28, which provides that the question of public use shall be judicially determined, and Article VI, § 21, which authorized the legislature and cities and counties to enact legislation for the taking of blighted areas.

    Schneider v. District of Columbia, 117 F. Supp. 705; Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes, 266 P.2d 105. (4) The clearance of blighted and insanitary areas is a subject separate and distinct from the redevelopment of areas which have been cleared, and the inclusion of both of these subjects in the same legislative act violates Article III, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Art. III, Sec. 23, Constitution of Missouri, 1945; Laws 1951, p. 300; Secs. 99.310, 99.430, 99.330(12) (c), RSMo 1953 Cum. Supp.; Witzmann v. Southern Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 612, 33 S.W. 181; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S.W. 77; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S.W. 738. (5) The provisions of the Land Clearance For Redevelopment Act authorizing the City Council and respondent Authority to determine that certain areas are blighted or insanitary, and that the land therein should be acquired, violate the Federal and State Constitutions. There is an improper delegation of legislative power to respondent authority, in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the State Constitution, permitting is to determine what areas are to be the subject of redevelopment plans.

  3. State v. Thomas

    301 Mo. 603 (Mo. 1923)   Cited 16 times

    State v. Doerring, 194 Mo. 398, 411; State v. Murlin, 137 Mo. 297, 305; State ex rel. v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10. (6) The expression of one subject, in the title to a bill, is the exclusion of every other subject which the act may contain. Berry v. Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 68; Witzman v. Railroad, 131 Mo. 612; State v. Rawlins, 232 Mo. 558; State v. Crenshaw, 22 Mo. 457; Wharton's P. P., sec. 237. (7) The title must not only express a subject, but must express that subject which is dealt with in the body of the act. State v. Railroad, 113 S.W. 916; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27. (8) The act is void as a whole where the title expresses one subject and the act deals with a plurality of subjects.

  4. State ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick

    294 Mo. 21 (Mo. 1922)   Cited 75 times
    In State v. Hedrick, 296 S.W. (Mo.) 152, a case cited by appellant, where the charge was selling liquor, the court ruled that proof by the State in rebuttal that empty bottles with whiskey odor were found on defendant's person when he was arrested, was not prejudicial, even if erroneously admitted, because defendant had previously admitted such possession.

    (2) Sec. 5995, R.S. 1919, is in conflict with Section 28 of Article IV of the Constitution, and is unconstitutional and void for the reason that the title to the act of which it is a part is fatally defective, in that it does not clearly express the subject of the act, nor does the title include within its scope and meaning any grant of power to the Governor to prefer charges, hold a hearing, make findings or remove the Warehouse Commissioner. State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 313; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 529; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 616; City of Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 162; State v. Great Western T. C. Co., 171 Mo. 643; State v. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mo. 30; 1 Story, Constitution, sec. 451; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 387; State v. Crites, 209 S.W. 863; Woodward Hardware Co. v. Fisher, 190 S.W. 576; Berry v. Majestic Mill. Co., 223 S.W. 738; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 200 Mo. 97; Vice v. City of Kirksville, 217 S.W. 77; Bell v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 28 Nev. 297; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 558; Brooks v. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 278. (3) Sec. 5995 is void because in violation of Article III of the Constitution, in that it attempts to invest the executive department with judicial authority.

  5. Brown Shoe Co. v. Aetna Life Ins Co.

    220 Mo. App. 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    The subject-matter contained in them is clearly within the title to the Act. This distinguishes these sections from section 1726b, which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 223 S.W. 738. The holding of section 1726b unconstitutional does not invalidate sections 1717 or 1718.

  6. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

    492 U.S. 490 (1989)   Cited 333 times
    Holding that a state law prohibiting abortions in public hospitals was permissible because it "leaves a pregnant woman with the same choices as if the State had chosen not to operate any public hospitals at all"

    Mo. Const., Art. 3, § 23. See In re Ray, 83 B.R. 670 (Bkrtcy Ct., ED Mo. 1988); Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 223 S.W. 738 (Mo. 1920). Moreover, none of the tort, property, or criminal law cases cited by the State was either based on or buttressed by a theological answer to the question of when life begins.

  7. Union Elec. Co. v. Kirkpatrick

    606 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. 1980)   Cited 7 times

    Such is not this case, and in reaching our conclusion we have considered the authorities submitted by respondents and particularly those of this state. Graff v. Priest, 356 Mo. 401, 201 S.W.2d 945 (1947); Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S.W. 738 (1920); State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194, 209 S.W. 863, 864 (1919); and State v. Burgdoerfer, 17 S.W. 646 (1891). Secondly, we consider the "one subject" rule and find that the proposed act is not violative thereof.

  8. Hoerath v. Sloan's Moving Storage Co.

    305 S.W.2d 418 (Mo. 1957)   Cited 6 times

    , Art. III, § 23, supra. Defendant cites State ex inf. McKittrick v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484, 148 S.W.2d 527, 532 (stating purposes of said Art. III, § 23); Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 192, 223 S.W. 738, 740 (a title covering regulation held not to embrace provisions prohibiting); State ex rel. Inter-Insurance Auxiliary v. Rebelle, 257 Mo. 529, 539, 165 S.W. 1084, 1087 (an act to define indemnity contracts held not to embrace exempting such contracts from the insurance law); Southard v. Short, 320 Mo. 932, 8 S.W.2d 903, 905 (a title covering descents and distributions of estates held not to embrace provisions authorizing suit by the mother to establish paternity of an illegitimate child); State ex rel. Barker v. Assurance Co. of America, 251 Mo. 278, 294, 158 S.W. 640, 646, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 955 (an act to regulate insurance on property considered not to repeal the anti-trust laws); Williams Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Ginsburg, 347 Mo. 119, 146 S.W.2d 604 [6, 7] (a title restricted to mechanic's liens against railroads held not to embrace mechanic's liens generally); State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500 (an act relating to herding by "non-residents" not broad enough to cover herding by resi

  9. Hammett v. Kansas City

    351 Mo. 192 (Mo. 1943)   Cited 16 times

    uckenberger, 51 Ohio App. 228, 200 N.E. 210; Columbus So. Oh. Elec. Co. v. West, 36 N.E.2d 3; McGill v. St. Joseph, 38 S.W.2d 725; Schwaller v. May, 115 S.W.2d 207; Packard v. Benton, 264 U.S. 140. (3) Section 8395, R.S. 1939, and particularly the proviso in paragraph (c) thereof relating to any other requirement is void and violative of and in conflict with Section 28, Article IV, of the Constitution of Missouri. State ex rel. v. Becker, 329 Mo. 1041, 47 S.W.2d 781; State ex rel. Barker v. Assur. Co. of America, 251 Mo. 278, 158 S.W. 640; State ex rel. Niedermeyer v. Hackman, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S.W. 742; Sherrill v. Brantley, 334 Mo. 497, 66 S.W.2d 529; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; Butler v. Board of Education, 16 S.W.2d 44; City of Columbia v. Public Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W.2d 813; State ex rel. City of Breckenridge v. Thompson, 320 Mo. 323, 15 S.W.2d 340; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W. 122; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S.W. 738; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S.W. 77; Woodward Hardware Co. v. Fisher, 269 Mo. 271, 190 S.W. 576; State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Gordon, 268 Mo. 713, 188 S.W. 160; State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Gordon, 237 Mo. 383, 135 S.W. 929; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26, 105 S.W. 733; State ex rel. Steele v. Baker, 129 Mo. 482, 39 S.W. 924; Kansas City v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; State ex rel. Hixon v. Schofield, 41 Mo. 39. (4) Ordinance No. 6977 is not prohibited by Section 8395, R.S. 1939, relating to "Regulations and License Fees" of motor vehicles. Roper v. Greenspon, 272 Mo. 288, 198 S.W. 1107; Laws 1921 (Ex.

  10. Hunt v. Armour Co.

    345 Mo. 677 (Mo. 1940)   Cited 54 times
    Ruling that defendant's demurrer to the evidence should have been granted due to inadequacy of plaintiff's causation evidence

    The statute also runs afoul of Article IV, Section 28 of the Constitution of the State, providing that the subject of any bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, for the title to this act contains the limitation that it shall apply only to employees engaged in the repair of cars to be used within this State whereas the act itself contains no such limitation, and applies to the repair of cars, regardless of where such cars are to be used. Sec. 28, Art. IV, Mo. Const.; Columbia v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W.2d 816; 36 Cyc., p. 1029; State ex rel. v. Edwards, 241 S.W. 950; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S.W. 743; Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W.2d 1162; State ex rel. v. Walker, 326 Mo. 1233, 34 S.W.2d 131; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 223 S.W. 738; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 529, 165 S.W. 1084. Randolph Randolph and Nile L. Vermillion for respondent.