collateral inquiry in Missouri

1900In several recent cases it has been- held that in order to give this court jurisdiction of a cause on the ground that title to real estate is involved, the judgment to be rendered must directly affect the title, and it is not sufficient that a collateral inquiry into the title is necessarily involved in the trial. [Price v. Blankenship, 144 Mo. 203 ; Rothrock v. Lumber Co., 146 Mo. 57 ; Edwards v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 513 ; Gay v. Savings Ass’n, 149 Mo. 606 ; Bonner v. Lisenby, 157 Mo. 165 .] The test of jurisdiction as laid down in those decisions may be illustrated thus: A claims to be the owne

1900In the subsequent ease (Gray v. Savings and Building Ass’n., 149 Mo. 606 ), opinion by Yalliant, J., it seems to be held that a suit in equity to enjoin and annul a deed of trust upon real estate on the ground that it had become invalid by payment, does not present any issue involving the title to. real estate, and the same doctrine is' stated with more directness in a still later opinion of the same learned Judge, Bonner v. Lisenby, 57 S. W.

1900In several recent cases it has been- held that in order to give this court jurisdiction of a cause on the ground that title to real estate is involved, the judgment to be rendered must directly affect the title, and it is not sufficient that a collateral inquiry into the title is necessarily involved in the trial. [Price v. Blankenship, 144 Mo. 203 ; Rothrock v. Lumber Co., 146 Mo. 57 ; Edwards v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 513 ; Gay v. Savings Ass’n, 149 Mo. 606 ; Bonner v. Lisenby, 157 Mo. 165 .] The test of jurisdiction as laid down in those decisions may be illustrated thus: A claims to be the owne

1900In the subsequent ease (Gray v. Savings and Building Ass’n., 149 Mo. 606 ), opinion by Yalliant, J., it seems to be held that a suit in equity to enjoin and annul a deed of trust upon real estate on the ground that it had become invalid by payment, does not present any issue involving the title to. real estate, and the same doctrine is' stated with more directness in a still later opinion of the same learned Judge, Bonner v. Lisenby, 57 S. W.

1900In several recent cases it has been- held that in order to give this court jurisdiction of a cause on the ground that title to real estate is involved, the judgment to be rendered must directly affect the title, and it is not sufficient that a collateral inquiry into the title is necessarily involved in the trial. [Price v. Blankenship, 144 Mo. 203 ; Rothrock v. Lumber Co., 146 Mo. 57 ; Edwards v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 513 ; Gay v. Savings Ass’n, 149 Mo. 606 ; Bonner v. Lisenby, 157 Mo. 165 .] The test of jurisdiction as laid down in those decisions may be illustrated thus: A claims to be the owne

1900In two later eases ( 146 Mo. 57 ; 150 Mo. 424 ), it was ruled that appeals in actions for trespass, where title was a collateral inquiry, should not be taken to the supreme court, an unquestionably correct application of the rule stated in Price v. Blankenship, supra. In another case, Valliant, J., after deciding that a judgment for $985 for damages to land, the trial of which involved a collateral inquiry as to title, did noit on that account bring the appeal within the constitutional provision under review, adds, in entire harmony with previous rulings, to-wit: “A suit in equity, for example

2024Id. at 373 .

2018"The judgment conclusively binds the defendant and precludes his assertion of a collateral claim as to which his actual innocence is an essential element." Id. (citing Adolf , 691 S.W.2d at 502-04 ).

1996The rationale behind this principle, which is often termed "the collateral bar rule" was well set out by the United States Supreme Court in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 , 95 S.Ct. 584 , 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975), as follows: We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly.

1996The rationale behind this principle, which is often termed "the collateral bar rule" was well set out by the United States Supreme Court in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 , 95 S.Ct. 584 , 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975), as follows: We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly.

1978We said then 112 Mo. 149 , 20 S.W. at 460 : That the county court was only authorized to entertain the proceeding to condemn plaintiff’s land for the road, upon notice given as required by the statute, . is not to be questioned, but it is a well-settled principle that, where the jurisdiction of an inferior court depends upon a fact which said court is required to ascertain and settle by its decision, its decision is conclusive as against a collateral attack . . .

1978We said then 112 Mo. 149 , 20 S.W. at 460 : That the county court was only authorized to entertain the proceeding to condemn plaintiff’s land for the road, upon notice given as required by the statute, . is not to be questioned, but it is a well-settled principle that, where the jurisdiction of an inferior court depends upon a fact which said court is required to ascertain and settle by its decision, its decision is conclusive as against a collateral attack . . .

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924This court has held that the courts will not pause in the trial of a cause to open up a collateral inquiry of whether a wrong has been committed in obtaining information which a witness possesses. [Cluett v. Rosenthal, 100 Mich. 193 ; People v. Aldorfer, 164 Mich. 676 ; People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108 , 34 L.R.A.

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924(N.S.) 58.] But this court has also held upon an application made before trial for mandamus to set aside an order of the circuit court, permitting the police department to take possession of property of the citizen, pending investigation for crime and depriving the owner of its possession, that the order should be vacated and set aside, resulting in the return of the property thus unlawfully withheld. [Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Mich. 567 , 31 L.R.A. 163 .]" For the foregoing reasons, we think the evidence obtained in the unlawful search and seizure by the sheriff *Page 432 and his assistants,

1924This court has held that the courts will not pause in the trial of a cause to open up a collateral inquiry of whether a wrong has been committed in obtaining information which a witness possesses. [Cluett v. Rosenthal, 100 Mich. 193 ; People v. Aldorfer, 164 Mich. 676 ; People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108 , 34 L.R.A.

1924This court has held that the courts will not pause in the trial of a cause to open up a collateral inquiry of whether a wrong has been committed in obtaining information which a witness possesses. [Cluett v. Rosenthal, 100 Mich. 193 ; People v. Aldorfer, 164 Mich. 676 ; People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108 , 34 L.R.A.