*1 says provided conducted elections shall be provision, such such At it can be do general election laws. least arbitrary re- an of discretion not show or abusive exercise ground. secretary put "We our decision on that of state. spondent peremptory For the reasons stated a writ mandamus is denied.
All concur. of Missouri at the relation of Terminal Railroad Association Corporation, Relator, v. William C. Louis, Hughes, St. Lyon Judges J. McCullen of the St. Edward Anderson, Appeals, Respondents.
Louis Court of 38047. No. at the relation Missouri Railroad Association a Corporation, Relator, v. William C. Louis, Hughes, Lyon J. McCullen Judges of the St. Edward Anderson, Louis Appeals, Respondents. Court of 38048. 169 S. W. No. (2d) 328. Two, January 4,
Division 1943.
Rehearing Denied, March *2 Hadley Sheppard Arnot for relator. L.
Carleton S.
Hay Flanagan for respondents. & damages for BOHLING, Originating as actions C. — (herein-
failure the Terminal Association Louis Railroad after designated Terminal) under to issue service letters Sec.
R. two prosecuted these certiorari Terminal. The issue previous is whether conflict with this ruling, requests court arises of-appeals from service redcaps letters made ushers the stationmaster at the compliance St. Louis union station constituted sufficient said section under impose liability the facts in evidence to civil the Terminal. Chrisman v. (Mo. App.), Terminal Rd. Ass’n (2d) 230; Hopkins S. W. (Mo. Rd. App.), Ass’n presented The cases like issues. *4 facts principal opinion was the delivered in Chrisman case. Sec. 5064 reads: any any employee “Whenever corporation doing of business his state discharged voluntarily shall be quit or the of corpo- service such ration, duty it superintendent shall be the manager of the or of said corporation, upon request the employee (if of such employee such shall have been the service said corporation of period for a of at ninety days), least to issue to employee duly, a letter, signed by such such superintendent manager, setting or forth nature the and char- acter by of service rendered employee,to such corporation such and truly the thereof, duration stating and for what cause, any, if such employee quit service; has any such and if superintendent such manager or shall fail or refuse to issue such letter to such employee by requested when so employee, such superintendent such manager or shall guilty be deemed a misdemeanor, of and punished shall by be any fine in sum not exceeding five dollars, by hundred or imprison- county ment jail in the for a period by not or year, exceeding both such fine and imprisonment,”
873 letter request for a made their Hopkins and Mr. Mr. Chrisman request They no made upon the Terminal’s stationmaster. by manager the Terminal.
any designated superintendent of person a Mr! Mathewson had that appeals of court of states The the Mr. Davis had been designated general and a superintendent been as Terminal; that there was no designated superintendent of the superintendent general of or whatever the said evidence as to duties they any management or superintendent supervision or whether had “ ‘super had redcaps; over the ushers the stationmaster or and that them, orders, redcaps; vision hired and fired and over the issued the directly give fixed he work; the if didn’t the did hours he orders ” through that, it the chief concluded in the cir usher.’ The court record, legislative cumstances of the stationmaster “came within the meaning superintendent manager redcaps.” or the as to ushers (2d)W. See 157 S. l. c.s improvidently We think our A number our writ issued. courts, province are to it within
decisions the effect is of the appeal to their construe statutes and that in certiorari quashed language records are not be if open the. the statute is to construction and has never been construed on a this court record sufficiently require identical or facts similar application of a principal previously of law announced this court.
This, though might question even we holding be inclined court of appeals; because the issue one of conflict not ruling the correctness of the under review. Wors v. Hostetter (Banc), (2d) 343 Mo. ; 1078[6-9] State ex rel. Clark v. Shain Mo. 971, 974[6, 7]; Cox, 790, 797, State ex rel. Arndt v. (2d) 1079, Heuring State ex Allen, 1082[4]
88,
Asserting request must be made ‘‘superintendent to the manager,” or claims conflict with Cheek v. Prudential (Mo.), Co. 390, 391, stressing, quoting while paragraph thereof, II reading: the sentence superintendent ‘‘The mentioned in the statute the officer of company duty' whose " is made to issue the letter for employee. it to the here issue Of whom or is: must request letter be made? The way are in instant facts analogous the instant' issue is mentioned, discussed or ruled in Cheek supra. Hence there is rulings. no conflict of
A number of ruling attacks and observations arriving statements at made in are bottomed *5 assertion the statute is criminal penal and in nature and to be strictly against construed plaintiffs liberally and in favor of the (cid:127) Terminal. Certiorari in rulings conflicts not concerned dictum or inconsistencies, nonconsequential if They to the not rise do opinion. an arguendo in appearing
any, Bland, Tonnar ruling. ex rel. See State dignity of a Hayes Ellison (2d) 462, 463[1, 2]; Banc), 191 W. (Mo. 55[13]. im part first parts. The into two divided be Section to managers corporations of or duty superintendents upon a poses super a renders part of the statute letters. The second issue service comply failure to for manager guilty misdemeanor or of a intendent of the penal portion the Terminal stresses provisions. The with its remedial and both a statute is that where It has statute. been another, con it should be in part penal in while penal, remedial remedy sought enforce the to when it is remedial statute sidered as a St. Murphy v. penalty. sought to the penal and when it is enforce 642[6]; Co., App. Louis-S. F. Rd. like Co., supra, J., Sec. 662. Cheek p. C. statute; presenting review, of the part the instant involved first the a failure upon petition the whether a in based issue count Cheek’s the against comply a of action to with said statute stated cause im neither that the statute Prudential. The Prudential contended against it posed duty gave right a a action corporation on the nor of imposed duty manager upon but superintendent the or and the guilty him a mis requested to the letter made of his failure issue declare, Although demeanor. the statute does not haec verba so wrongfully give employee, an refused a the letter, construed to right corporate of action it the a master and to make his duty corporation acting through superintendent manager the its or duty manager to the letter superintendent issue and not the the or capacity. his individual The court stated historical the reasons prevention injustice enactment to be the which oppression, and had great large become so public evil, laboring as to be a numbers of people, regulate and concerning issuance letters former corporate employee’s leaving record and his reason the service end employee stating be armed with a letter the true (192 391) the, S. W. l. repair c.s and to injury if one be (l. 393) sustained also, c. among The court things, other observed that the enactment was for protection public, the benefit employees, brought had been corporations on and not by their superintendents managers, or within police power was State, discriminatory was not legislation, imposed class and unjust expense burden or corporations on (l. 392). c. “Such legislation violates no provision, constitutional or Federal, of; I know but the other hand, highly beneficial commendable.” (l 393.) c. It follows that the Terminal’s contentions . bottomed upon strict construction of part the first of the statute are harmony yield out of with and must proceeding the instant accompanying reasons in Cheek v. Prudential
875 construing the statute relied only court this supra, the case of ruling respondents’ opin in The observations the Terminal. record light developed in the of the facts ion to be read are presented for determination. respondents and the issues before request that the for a inconceivable it is The states failing may punished for person and another be letter be made of not course, appeals did rule. comply with it. Of the court of so This penal portion The contention of the statute. based argument in appeals. was not the court of The is the same before unsuccessfully part argument interposed in effect as Cheek designates Co., supra. “superin statute manager” person tendent or as the to issue the letter. It contains no explicit provision person request as to the upon whom the to be liability made that civil corporation. attach to the In view the construction part of the first of the statute in Cheek v. Prudential Co., supra, rulings and the there made a position we not in to hold under the record in under cases review said first part of the open was to construction respect statute of whom request should be made. tating
The Terminal another point, makes present was ed but was not discussed (i. or even e. was ignored) mentioned in re spondents’ opinion although respondents’ judgment affirmance nisi constituted a the doctrine contended for. State Boeving ex rel. (Div. II), v. Cox 310 372(I, II), Mo. 367, 276 S. W. 869, II), 870 (I, is cited the question being open inquiry for here. think We several disallowing reasons be advanced for point, ’ which relates punitive damages. allowance of The Missouri case cited to a establish Chicago, conflict is McGinnis v. R. I. Ry. & P. 200 347, (N. Mo. L. 590, S.) 9 R. A. That was an compensatory action for damages personal injuries against a servant and liability resting his master —the master’s on respondeat the doctrine of superior. We a plaintiff’s held verdict against the master joined but also favor of the servant, with the party master as a defendant, support would not judgment against the master on account of the exoneration of the servant. No servant joined was as a party defendant with the Terminal in the instant case. We understand a reading from Boeving Cox, of State ex supra, the court appeal’s opinion there involved disclosed that the point was within the presented issues for determination. We are not concerned with facts and issues omitted from but are concerned with the facts and issues stated in appeals certiorari rulings. determine conflict State ex rel. Govro v. Hostetter, 266 119 [3], State ex 24[3]; rel. Jones v. Robertson (Banc), Mo. 538(I), 172 S. W. 21 City ex rel. State [1]; Joseph v. Ellison 674[9, 223 S. W. ; State ex Rys. rel. United Co. v. Allen 0] 1 issues to the briefs rel. State v. Smith 862, 865 Shain (Mo), (Mo.), Mo. Mut. Ass’n Mo. (2d) 396 ex rel. Breit v. Shain presented to (Banc), (V), 276 S. [7, 9]; 20 S. W. (Mo.), 123 761 State alleged (V), 278 S. 43 S. 117, 121 [3] (2d) v. W. ex rel. W. Allen, 336 Mo. (2d)W. courts 387[6]. issues [5] 51 N. [6] ex 872[1], 1029 "of not determined 772, 775 ; rel. Shaw Transfer To appeal State [4] Nat. Ins. Co. 352, refer to ; State ex rel. 119 S. ex [7]; and then 360[4], rel. Public Major Allen, 310 Mo. W. State ex the briefs for v. discussed. We refuse 362, 78 W. (2d) 220, proceed Trimble, 323 Mo. Burton v. Co. v. Serv. Comm. rel. Silverforb to deter 222[2] Trimble to refer alleged Allen, *7 (2d) ex v. ; jurisdiction. The appellate instant
mine would smack such issues inquiries conflicts proceeding is restricted Boeving Cox, supra, does harmony. We preserve think ex go; Terminal would have but should extend as far as the us language longer if and as used be followed insofar therein no applicable that the is to situations lend itself to construction like the instant.
Finding quashed. our writ of certiorari Westhues conflict, Barrett, CC., concur. foregoing by Bohling, C., PER opinion adopted CURIAM:—-The judges All the court. concur. City Respondent, Kansas Bush, Company, Public Service Grover Appellant. 331. Corporation, 38149. 169 No. Two, January
Division