Case Name: The State ex rel. Macklin v. Rombauer et al., Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1891-04
Citations: 104 Mo. 619
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Macklin v. Rombauer et al., Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Judges: Sherwood, C. J., and Barclay, Gantt and Macharlaste, JJ., concur; Black and Brace, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 619–633

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Macklin v. Rombauer et al., Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
IN BANC.
Prohibition: preliminary order in vacation : supreme court. A judge of the supreme court may in vacation issue a preliminary order returnable into court to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be issued.
Prohibition.
Motion to quash order to show cause overruled.
Frank M. Estes, Willis H. Clark and T. P. Bashaw for relator.
(1) A preliminary rule of prohibition may be properly issued by a judge in vacation. Lloyd on Prohibition, ch. 9, secs. 1, 2, 3 ; Iveson v. Harris, 7 Yes. 251 ; 4 Inst. 81; Mayo v. James, 12 Gratt. 17; Ex parte Ray, 45 Ala. 15; Ex parte Boothe, 64 Ala. 312; High oh Extra. Rem., sec. 785; Addison on Torts [Wood’s'Ed. 1881] sec. 1462; Const. Mo., art. 6, secs. 3, 12; Const. Mo., secs. 5, 8, amendment to art. 6; Stale ex rel. v. Weeks, 93 Mo. 499. (2) The court of appeals has no final or conclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the construction of the constitution of the state of Missouri. Const. Mo., art. 6, secs. 2, 3, 12; Const. Mo., secs. 5, 6, 8, amendment to art. 6; State ex rel^v. Court, 41 Mo. 44; Thomas v. Mead, 36 Mo. 248; Vitl v. Owens, 42 Mo. 512; Trainer v. Porter, 45 Mo. 336 ; State ex rel. v. Court, 97 Mo. 279 ; State ex rel. v. Francis, 95 Mo. 44; Nall v. Railroad, 97 Mo. 68 ; In re McDonald, 19 Mo. App. 370; Ex parte Boenninghausen, 21 Mo. App. 270; State ex rel. v. Seay, 23 Mo. App. 623; State ex rel. v. Blakemore, 104 Mo.; State ex rel. v. Macklin, 104 Mo.; State ex rel. v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 370 ; High Extr. Legal Remedies [2 Ed.] sec. 781; Quinbo Appo v. The People, 20 N. Y. 531; State v. Ridgell, 2 Bailey, 560; North Bloomfield Q. M. Co. v. Keyser, 58 Cal. 315; Mastín v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252; State ex rel. v. Burckhartl, 87 Mo. 533; Addison on Torts [Wood’s Ed. 1881] sec. 1456.
Given Campbell and O’Neil Regan for respondents.

Opinion:
Thomas, J.
— The question now involved in this case has received our consideration, and we adopt the opinion of Barclay, J., as the opinion of this court sitting in banc, and order judgment to be entered accordingly.
We will add that our attention has been called to the statement made by Lloyd in his work on prohibition, page 5, as follows: " A writ of prohibition must be moved for in open court, and a judge at chambers has no power to grant it either in term or vacation." It is evident Mr. Lloyd here refers to the practice in the courts of common law, for on page 4 of the same work he uses this language: ' ' The court of chancery may also grant a prohibition in all cases when the common-law courts are not sitting, for the court of chancery has power to grant a prohibition in vacation as well as in term time." And again on page 58 he says, "but the application to the court of chancery in vacation need not be made in open court, but the cursitor will, on a proper affidavit, grant a writ returnable into the queen's bench or common pleas."
By virtue of the provision in our constitution vesting all judicial power "as to matters of law and equity" in the courts of the state in the exercise of its original jurisdiction in prohibition, in the absence of any statute on the subject, this court may "shape its proceedings in such form as will preserve the effectiveness of the ancient remedy administered by the superior courts, either of law or chancery, in the common-law system of jurisprudence.
The judges of this court, having the combined powers of a chancellor and common-law judge, have authority to do what either might have done under the old system, in respect of this writ.
Sherwood, C. J., and Barclay, Gantt and Macharlaste, JJ., concur; Black and Brace, JJ., dissent.