Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/State ex rel. Jones v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works

State ex rel. Jones v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works

156 S.W. 967, 249 Mo. 702, 1913 Mo. LEXIS 97
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 28, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 156 S.W. 967 (State ex rel. Jones v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works) 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
State ex rel. Jones v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 156 S.W. 967, 249 Mo. 702, 1913 Mo. LEXIS 97 (Mo. 1913).

Opinions

WOODSON, J.

This was a suit instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, by the respondent against the appellant, to have its charter forfeited for failure to make and ñle with the Secretary of State, an anti-trust affidavit, as required by sections 10322 and 10323, Eevised Statutes 1909, regarding pools, trusts, conspiracies and discriminations.

A trial was had before the court without the intervention of a jury, which resulted in a decree in favor of the respondent forfeiting the charter of the appellant as prayed.

In proper time all necessary steps for an appeal were duly taken, and thereafter the cause was appealed to this court.

The petition filed in the cause was as follows:

“State of Missouri, City of St. Louis, ss.
“In the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, October Term, 1910.
[711]*711“The State of Missouri, at the Relation of Seebert G. Jones, Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, Relator, v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, a Corporation, Respondent.
“Comes now Seebert G. Jones, circuit attorney within and for the city of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and states that the respondent is. and at. all times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation duly organized, incorporated and existing, under and by virtue of the laws of Missouri, located and transacting and conducting business in the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri, and as such corporation, respondent is amenable to the provisions of chapter 98 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909, entitled ‘Pools, trusts, conspiracies and discriminations.’
“Relator states that on or about the first day of July, A. D. 1910, the Secretary of State of the State of Missouri, in obedience to the requirements of section 10322 of said Revised Statutes, duly addressed and mailed to the president of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 3600 North Second street, St. Louis, Missouri, the respondent incorporated company, a letter of inquiry as to whether the said respondent corporation had all or any of its business or interest in or with any trust, combination or association of persons or stockholders, as named in the provisions of article 1 of said chapter 98 of said Revised Statutes, and requiring an answer, under oath, of the president, secretary, or managing officer of said respondent company, and said Secretary of State duly inclosed in said letter of inquiry a form of affidavit, being the same form required by the laws of the State of Missouri and prescribed and set forth in said section 10322 of said Revised Statutes and being in words and figures as follows, to-wit:
[712]*712(Here the petition sets forth a full copy of the form of affidavit prescribed in section 10322.)
“And thereupon it became the duty of said respondent corporation to make answer to such inquiry by filing or causing to be filed with the said Secretary of State the affidavit prescribed in and required by sections 10322 and 10323 of said Revised Statutes, but respondent corporation, unmindful of its said duty, in disregard of the statutes and laws of this State in respect to pools, trusts and conspiracies and discrimina-tions and in violation of said sections 10322 and 10323, has failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to make answer to such inquiry, under oath of its president, secretary, treasurer or managing officer, as required by said sections, and has failed, neglected and refused, and still fails, neglects and refuses to file or cause to be filed with the said Secretary of State such affidavit, described and required by said sections to be made and filed, although more than thirty days have elapsed since the date of the mailing of such inquiry to respondent corporation by said Secretary of State, as aforesaid.
“And relator further states that the fact of such failure of respondent corporation and its officers to make such answer and file such affidavit in response to said letter of inquiry, within thirty days from the mailing thereof, has been by said Secretary of State duly certified to relator, the said circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis.
“Relator states that by reason of the premises respondent has forfeited'its charter and subjected itself to the forfeitures and penalties imposed by sections 10322 and 10327 of said Revised Statutes.
“Wherefore, relator prays that respondent’s charter and its certificate of incorporation be declared and adjudged forfeited, void and of no effect, and that the [713]*713costs of this proceeding he adjudged against respondent.
“Seebert G. Jones,
“Circuit Attorney of the city of St. Louis.
“Forest G. Ferris,
“Assistant Circuit Attorney.”

The appellant filed a demurrer to the petition and assigned numerous grounds therefor, which was by the court overruled; and thereupon the defendant an-, swered, the substance of which is as follows:

1. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue in manner and form as in said petition attempted;

2. There is a defect of parties plaintiff;

3. This defendant cites the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as a bar to the allegations of said petition;

4. This defendant cites section 23 of the second article of the Constitution of the State of Missouri as a bar to the allegations of the petition;

5. Defendant for further defense admits that, on the first day of June, 1910, and from that day to the present time, defendant was and still is a corporation duly organized and existing according to law, and that at the said time mentioned defendant was and is doing business and had and has an office in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.

For further answer defendant denies generally each and every allegation of the petition herein, except as above admitted.

By answering over, counsel for appellant waived the demurrer and the attending rulings thereon, which relieves this court of the duty to review the same.

The facts of the case are few and undisputed.

The evidence showed that on the 13th day of June, 1910, the Secretary of State inclosed in an envelope, properly addressed to the appellant, postage prepaid, the letter and the contents thereof, mentioned in the petition, which was duly registered by the postal au[714]*714thorities, and was on the following day, Jnne 14, 1910, delivered to and received by the appellant. The contents of said letter consisted of a sheet of paper, on the one side of which was printed a blank form of the affidavit, required by sections 10322 and 10323, Revised Statutes 1909, to be made by the president, secretary or other managing officer of the appellant company, and by him filed in the office of the Secretary of State, within thirty days from the date of the mailing of said blank by the Secretary of State to the company.

In order to have a clear conception of this case, it will be necessary for us to copy some of the most important statutes inyolved in the case, and to state the substance of the provisions of certain others, which are incidentally or collaterally involved.

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

Related

City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, Inc.
203 S.W.3d 189 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2006)
State v. Thomaston
726 S.W.2d 448 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State Ex Rel. Mather v. Carnes
551 S.W.2d 272 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
State Ex Rel. Cole v. Nigro
471 S.W.2d 933 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
State Ex Rel. North v. Kirtley
327 S.W.2d 166 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1959)
State Ex Rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Allen
100 S.W.2d 487 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936)
City of Kirksville Ex Rel. Eggert v. Harrington
35 S.W.2d 614 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1930)
Automatic Sprinkler Co. of America v. Stephens
267 S.W. 888 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
Sid Westheimer Co. v. Piner
263 S.W. 578 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 S.W. 967, 249 Mo. 702, 1913 Mo. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-jones-v-mallinckrodt-chemical-works-mo-1913.