Wabash Railroad Company v. Flannigan


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

192 U.S. 29

Wabash Railroad Company  v.  Flannigan

 Argued: December 18, 1903. --- Decided: January 4, 1904

The action wherein was entered the judgment which is sought to be reviewed by this writ of error was begun on December 20, 1900, by the filing in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of a petition on behalf of the Wabash Railroad Company, the plaintiff in error in this court. The defendants named in the petition were Alexander Flannigan and Virgil Rule, the present defendants in error. The cause of action was ultimately embodied in a third amended petition, filed, by leave of court, on April 15, 1901. From a recital made in the opinion of the St. Louis court of appeals the following summary of the allegations of that pleading is made:

After asserting its existence as a consolidated corporation from a named date, plaintiff alleged that it was indebted, on June 10, 1891, to one Tourville, for wages, in the sum of $81.98; that an action to recover such indebtedness was instituted by Tourville in a court of the state of Missouri on the date named, and that a judgment was rendered in favor of Tourville, which had been finally affirmed by this court; that in April, 1895, the defendant Flannigan recovered judgment against Tourville and the railroad company in a court of the state of Illinois, the railroad company being made garnishee in the action on account of the original indebtedness of $81.98 to Tourville, above mentioned; that Tourville had assigned the judgment obtained by him in the Missouri court to the defendant Virgil Rule, and that both the defendants Flannigan and Rule were undertaking to collect their respective judgments from the railroad company. The court was asked to permit a deposit in court of the sum of $81.98 and interest, and to require the defendants to interplead and to have determined their rights in respect to such deposited sum. The defendant Rule was served with summons, and a written appearance was filed on behalf of Flannigan, who was a nonresident.

In stating the subsequent steps in the litigation we shall omit reference to the facts which clearly have no relevancy to the alleged Federal questions.

Following the filing of the third amended petition an application was made for the allowance of a temporary injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from attempting to enforce their respective judgments pending the determination of the action. An order was thereupon made, temporarily restraining the defendants, and requiring them 'to show cause, if any they have, why a temporary injunction should not be issued herein, and the relief prayed for in said third amended petition should not be granted.' A 'return' to this order to show cause was filed on behalf of the defendant Rule, and therein was set forth numerous reasons why a temporary injunction should not issue and the relief prayed in the third amended petition should not be granted. Flannigan answered, admitting each and every allegation therein, and claiming priority of lien and right of payment out of the so-called fund of $81.98. Thereafter, on April 22, 1901, the plaintiff filed a motion for the relief prayed for, notwithstanding the aforesaid return of Virgil Rule, and numerous reasons were stated in support of the motion. On April 29, 1901, the court entered the following order:

'Now at this day come the parties herein by their respective attorneys, and the order issued herein on April 15, 1901, commanding the defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be granted against them, coming on for hearing upon the pleadings, affidavits, and proofs adduced, and the court having duly considered the same, and being sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, doth order that the prayer of plaintiff's bill be and is denied. It is further ordered by the court that the restraining order granted against defendants on April 15, 1901, be and is hereby dissolved.'

A motion for rehearing was filed and overruled.

The motion was based upon the assumption that the order in question operated as a judgment dismissing the petition. The fifteenth and last ground of the motion and the first and only specific reference made to the Constitution of the United States in the proceedings up to that time was as follows:

'Fifteenth. Because the court erred in refusing to give full faith and credit to the judgment of a sister state, as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States.'

On appeal the St. Louis court of appeals entered a judgment affirming in all things the 'judgment' of the trial court. 75 S. W. 691. No allusion was made in the opinion to any constitutional question. Application was then made to transfer the cause to the supreme court of Missouri, upon the claim that it involved 'a construction of § 1 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States.' The application was denied. A petition was next presented to the presiding judge of the St. Louis court of appeals, praying the allowance of a writ of error from this court. The petition was overruled, for the following stated reasons:

'In Wabash R. Co. v. Tourville, 179 U.S. 322, 45 L. ed. 210, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113, the judgment herein involved came under review. The validity of the Tourville judgment, as we understand the opinion, was sustained, and its priority over that of Flannigan was adjudged. In the face of this decision we deny the writ.'

A writ of error was afterwards allowed by a justice of this court. The error assigned embraced the following alleged Federal questions:

'19. Your petitioner charges and avers that in said suit, while the same was pending in said circuit court and in said court of appeals, the construction of the following clauses of the Constitution of the United States was drawn in question, viz.:

'The following clause of § 1, article IV.: 'Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.'

'Section 11, article IV.: 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.'

'The following clause of § 1, article XIV., of amendments to the Constitution: 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.'

'Your petitioner says that the decisions of courts on said clauses of the Constitution in said cause were against the rights, title, privilege, and exemption specially set up and claimed under said clauses of said Constitution by your petitioner.'

Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett and George S. Grover for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 32-34 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. John D. Johnson and Virgil Rule for defendants in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice White:

[Argument of Counsel from pages 34-36 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).