City of St. Louis v. Knox

74 Mo. 79
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 74 Mo. 79 (City of St. Louis v. Knox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of St. Louis v. Knox, 74 Mo. 79 (Mo. 1881).

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Proceedings by information, by the the attorney of the plaintiff, against the defendant, for violation of an ordinance in relation to stock yard proprietors, sale stables, etc., the said Thomas having failed to take out a license as required by that ordinance. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Counsel for defendant seem to regard this as a criminal proceeding, and, therefore, open to every such objection as might be taken were this a proceeding by in dietment. This position is altogether untenable,. The matter set forth in. the information is not a misdemeanor in the ordinary sense of that term; not an offense against the laws of the State,, but simply an infraction of a city ordinance, which infraction does not amount to a crime, but only to that which gives the city the right to proceed for the collection of a sum of money, because of the violation by defendant of the ordinance. This proceeding is only a civil suit and has the incidents and attributes merely of a quasi criminal character. City of Kansas v. Clark, 68 Mo. 588. For these reasons, it was not necessary that the defendant should be arraigned, or that there should be a plea of not guilty, found in the record. The information is well enough, since it describes the act complained of in the language of the ordinance. The objections, therefore, to the information were properly denied, and so we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Lerner
218 S.W. 331 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Hanser v. Bieber
197 S.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
People v. Fournier
141 N.W. 689 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
City of Columbia v. Samuels
147 S.W. 1132 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Fortune v. Incorporated Town of Wilburton
142 F. 114 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Town of Canton v. McDaniel
86 S.W. 1092 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
State ex rel. Hickman v. Preferred Tontine Mercantile Co.
82 S.W. 1075 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Fortune v. Incorporated Town of Wilburton
82 S.W. 738 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1904)
City of Louisiana v. Anderson
73 S.W. 875 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Delaney v. Police Court
67 S.W. 589 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
In re Jones
90 Mo. App. 318 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
State v. Muir
65 S.W. 285 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
State v. Muir
86 Mo. App. 642 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
City of Cassville v. Jimerson
75 Mo. App. 426 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
City of Gallatin v. Tarwater
44 S.W. 750 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
City of St. Louis v. Meyrose Lamp Manufacturing Co.
41 S.W. 244 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Golden City v. Hall
68 Mo. App. 627 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Town of Canton v. Ligon
71 Mo. App. 407 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
City of St. Louis v. Weitzel
31 S.W. 1045 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Kansas City v. Neal
49 Mo. App. 72 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 Mo. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-knox-mo-1881.