“[Cjonstitutional mandate[s] and standards cannot be broken down or rendered inoperative on the theory of discretionary power.”
How later courts described this case
- “[Cjonstitutional mandate[s] and standards cannot be broken down or rendered inoperative on the theory of discretionary power.”
- “[I]t appears from the Board’s own estimate that the most extreme violations of the standard of compactness . . . were not made for the purpose of obtaining equality of population but instead created the greatest inequality.”
- county, town, ward or other district lines
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[440] On Motion eor Rehearing
PER CURIAM:
Intervenors have filed a motion for rehearing, as have defendants Secretary of State and Attorney General, contending that Section 510.140 (statutory references are to RSMo. and V.A.M.S.) prevents this Court from entering judgment here upon the authority of Section 512.160(3). They say Section 510.140 makes it mandatory for this Court to remand this ease for them to present evidence.
We find no merit in this contention. In the first place, the actual defendants in the ease (the only necessary parties) filed no motion in the trial court, to dismiss or otherwise, and did not join in intervenors’ motion, so obviously they submitted the case on the evidence offered by plaintiff. Furthermore, intervenors in their motion at the end of the trial (both orally and in writing) moved “the Court to enter up a judgment in favor of these defendants and to dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition at plaintiff’s costs for the reason that under the law and the evidence in this case, plaintiff is not entitled to any of the relief prayed for in his Petition.” Our conclusion is that this cannot be construed as a motion under Section 510.140 but instead was a motion for a judgment declaring the validity of the redistricting involved, and amounted to a final submission of the case. That was the proper procedure in a declaratory judgment ease where it is the express duty of the trial court to make a declaration of rights regardless of which party is entitled to it. (Smith v. Pettis County, 345 Mo. 839 , 136 S. W. (2d) 282 ; Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 448 , 154 S. W. (2d) 39 ; Strype v. Lewis, 352 Mo. 1004 , 180 S. W. (2d) 688 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. (2d) 547 .) Intervenors say the *477 italicized portion of tbeir motion is surplusage and should be disregarded. However, for the reasons stated we hold that it must be considered and upon the whole record we find that all parties made a final submission of the case. Therefore, Section 510.140 is not available to intervenors in this Court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.