sumes to exercise corporate powers without common-law remedy by information for a authority. State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916. It is the proper remedy to test the right to exercise particular franchises not within the terms of the charter, and to oust the corporation therefrom. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Taylor, 25 Ohio St. 279; People ex rel. Longress v. Board of Education, 101 Ill. 308, 40 Am. Rep. 196; State ex rel. Little v. Regents of University, 55 Kan. 389, 29 L. R. A. 378, 40 Pac. 656; State ex rel. Vance v. Topeka, 31 Kan. 454, 2 Pac. 593; People v. Geneva College, 5 Wend. 211; People ex rel. Stewart v. Young Men's Father Matthew Total Abstinence Benev. Soc. No. 1, 41 Mich. 67, 1 N. W. 931; State ex rel. Richards v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 53 Ohio St. 190, 41 N. E. 205; Com. v. Equitable Beneficial Asso. 137 Pa. 412, 18 Atl. 1112; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; Com. ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co. 53 Pa. 9; Com. v. Cross Cut R. Co. 53 Pa. 62; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co. 18 Ohio St. 262. Gross abuse of a corporate franchise is a cause of which the supreme court will take jurisdiction. misuser of a corporate franchise. High, Extr. Legal Rem. 3d ed. § 651. Quo warranto lies to forfeit the exclusive feature of a franchise. Com. cx rel. Hensel v. Sturtevant, 182 Pa. 323, 37 Atl. 916. Or to order the discontinuance of acts complained of. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. People's Mut. Ben. Asso. 42 Ohio St. 579. There may be a judgment of ouster of a particular franchise, and not of the whole charter. State ex rel. Colburn v. Oberlin Bldg. & L. Asso. 35 Ohio St. 258; Com. v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 43 Pa. 295. An information in the nature of a quo warranto against a private corporation is a public prosecution. Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, 84 Ill. 426; People ex rel. Swigert v. Golden Rule, 114 Ill. 34, 28 N. E. 383. It is of legal, not equitable, cognizance, and the issues therein are strictly legal. People v. Albany & S. R. Co. 57 N. Y. 161. It is a civil suit, and must be governed by the rules applicable thereto. State ex rel. Brison v. Lingo, 26 Mo. 496. One charged with having usurped powers State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Milwaukee L. and franchises, and with exercising the S. & W. R. Co. 45 Wis. 585. At common law, the writ of quo warranto was prosecuted by the King's attorney general at the suit of the King, without any relation. It could be prosecuted only for the King in this manner, he being alone interested or concerned in the matter to be determined by it. State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 304. The original writ was issued out of chancery. There were three distinct classes of informations in the nature of quo war ranto. same without authority of law, must either justify or disclaim the alleged acts. Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, 84 Ill. 426. Information in the nature of quo warranto lies in all cases where the ancient writ could be maintained. Lindsey v. Atty. Gen. 33 Miss. 509; Com. v. Murray, 11 Serg. & R. 73, 14 Am. Dec. 614. In prosecution of the right to inquire into claims to any office or franchise, and to remove the parties unless they can show a com State ex rel. Mcllhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. plete legal title thereto, the attorney gen379. Where the legislature has not provided who shall determine whether quo warranto shall be brought, the discretion is vested in the attorney general. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 212; State ex rel. Harris v. McCann, 88 Mo. 386; State ex rel. Weed v. Meek, 129 Mo. 436, 31 S. W. 913. When the right to an office or franchise is the sole point in controversy, quo warranto is the specific legal remedy. High, Extr. Legal. Rem. 3d ed. § 619. Though other legal remedies may be had, yet the existence of such other remedies will not necessarily deprive the public of the eral may, of his own authority, and without any application to the court for leave, exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto to compel the right to be shown. King v. Clarke, 1 East, 43; King v. Trevenen, 2 Barn. & Ald. 482. The attorney general may file an information against a body corporate, in its corporate name, compelling it to show by what title it holds a franchise alleged to be usurped. Le Roy v. Cusacke, 2 Rolle Rep. 115. The general rule is that the court will not extend this remedy beyond the prescribed limits of the old writ, and that could only be prosecuted for an usurpation | Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. 383; High, Extr. on the rights or prerogatives of the Crown. Legal Rem. § 648; 2 Kyd, Corp. 390, 395; Rex v. Shepherd, 4 T. R. 381. 5 Thomp. Corp. § 6797. The statute 9 Anne applies only to corporate officers, offices and franchises of a corporate nature in corporate places. Rex v. Williams, 1 Burr. 407. That is, individuals usurping corporate offices or franchises in corporate places. It does not extend to a private company. Selwyn, N. P. 9th ed. 1167. There is no instance of quo warranto being brought but by and in the name of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Crown. Rex v. Carmarthen, 2 Burr. 869, 1 W. Bl. 187. Whether the supposed office or franchise has any legal existence or not, yet, if it is known to the law generally, and a person usurps it, quo warranto will lie. Queen v. Thomas, 8 Ad. & El. 188. The attorney general may also file an information against a corporate officer to compel him to show by what title he exercises a particular franchise. The state may impose, as a condition of the grant, and also of its continued exercise, the payment of a specific sum each year, or prescribe any other condition of that character; and the franchises can be forfeited for condition broken. Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 313, 36 L. ed. 164, 168, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 57, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 403; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 210, 38 L. ed. 962, 966, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 649, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1087; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. ed. 678; Raritan & D. B. R. Co. v. Delaware & R. Canal Co. 18 N. J. Eq. 546; Camden & A. R. & Transp. Co. v. Briggs, 22 N. J. L. 623; State v. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 38 L. R. A. 218, 62 Am. St. Rep. 742, 41 S. W. 955. An information in quo warranto may be filed to oust a corporation from its fran Rex v. Hertford, 1 Salk. 374, 1 Ld. Raym. chises for an ultra vires act and acts which 426. are against public policy, and to prevent the abuse of corporate power. In such case the attorney general acts ex officio of his own authority and at his own relation. Rex v. Ogden, 10 Barn. & C. 230; State v. Com. v. Fowler, 10 Mass. 290; State v. The writ of quo warranto is the proper remedy for usurpation of a franchise. Reynolds v. Baldwin, 1 La. Ann. 162; State v. Ramos, 10 La. Ann. 420. Ultra vires acts are grounds for direct proceedings by the state for judgment of forfeiture. People v. North River Sugar Ref. Co. 121 N. Y. 582, 9 L. R. A. 33, 18 Am. St. Rep. 843, 24 N. E. 834; State ex rel. Colburn v. Oberlin Bldg. & L. Asso. 35 Ohio St. 258. For a neglect or abuse of its franchise, a corporation may forfeit its charter as for condition broken, or for breach of trust. State ex rel. Watson v. Standard Oil Co. 49 Ohio St. 137, 15 L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541, 30 N. E. 279; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co. 45 Wis. 579; People ex rel. Weber v. Spring Valley, 129 Ill. 169, 21 N. E. 843. When a corporation is guilty of exercising powers not authorized by charter, the state may proceed by quo warranto to obtain a judgment merely ousting it from the further exercise of the illegal and unauthorized powers. People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243; Atty. Gen. v. Salem, 103 Mass. 138; People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. River Raisin & L. E. R. Co. 12 Mich. 389, 86 Am. Dec. 64; State ex rel. Vance v. Topeka, 31 Kan. 452, 2 Pac. 593, 30 Kan. 653, 2 Pac. 587: State ex rel. Strimple v. Bingham, 14 Ohio C. C. 245; State ex rel. Ross v. Somerby, 42 Minn. 55, 43 N. W. 689; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; People v. Geneva College, 5 Wend. 211; State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916. And this ouster from franchises unlawfully assumed does not affect the corporation with respect to its proper franchises. Ang. & A. Priv. Corp. § 774; Com. ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co. 58 Pa. 26; Washington & B. Turnp. Road v. State, 19 Md. 239; Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 4 Gill & J. 1; Com. v. Union F. & M. Ins. Co. 5 Mass. 230, 4 Am. Dec. 50; People v. Manhattan Co. 9 Wend State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & 351; People ex rel. Bishop v. Kingston & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 341, 41 S. W. 916; M. Turnp. Road Co. 23 Wend. 193, 35 Am. State v. Norwalk & D. Turnp. Co. 10 Conn. Dec. 551; People v. Bank of Washington & 167; Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, 84 Warren, 6 Cow. 211; People v. Bank of Hud- Ill. 426; People v. Lake Street Elev. R. Co. son, 6 Cow. 217; People ex rel. Coon v. Ply-54 Ill. App. 348; Danville & W. L. Pl. Road mouth Pl. Road Co. 32 Mich. 248; Com. v. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456; State ex rel. Sny der v. Portland Natural Gas & Oil Co. 153 | 488, 68 Pac. 946, 70 Pac. 114; State ex rel. Ind. 483, 53 L. R. A. 413, 74 Am. St. Rep. Atty. Gen. v. Portage City Water Co. 107 314, 53 N. E. 1089; Atty. Gen. v. Detroit | Wis. 441, 83 N. W. 697; State v. Milwaukee Suburban R. Co. 96 Mich. 65, 55 N. W. 562; Gaslight Co. 29 Wis. 454, 9 Am. Rep. 598. People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Wend. Information in the nature of quo warranto 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; People v. Geneva Col- may be maintained by the state through the lege, 5 Wend. 211; State v. Dayton Trac- attorney general to restrain a corporation tion Co. 18 Ohio C. C. 490; State ex rel. from exercising a particular franchise, Richards v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. power, or authority, not possessed by it unCo. 53 Ohio St. 189, 41 N. E. 205; State ex der its charter or governing statute. rel. Watson v. Standard Oil Co. 49 Ohio St. People v. New York, 32 Barb. 35; Com. 137, 15 L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541, v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 43 Pa. 295; 5 30 N. E. 279; Com. ex rel. Hensel v. Sturte- Thomp. Corp. § 6807; Thompson v. People, vant, 182 Pa. 323, 37 Atl. 916; Com. v. Dela- 23 Wend. 537; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. ware & H. Canal Co. 43 Pa. 301; State ex Co. 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; People rel. Atty. Gen. v. Portage City Water Co. ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 107 Wis. 441, 83 N. W. 697; People ex rel. 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243; State ex rel. Crow v. Moloney v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. 175 Lincoln Trust Co. 144 Mo. 562, 46 S. W. Ill. 125, 51 N. E. 664; State ex rel. Colburn | 593; State ex rel. Kohler v. Cincinnati, N. v. Oberlin Bldg. & L. Asso. 35 Ohio St. 264; | O. & T'. P. R. Co. 47 Ohio St. 130, 7 L. R. A. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Central Ohio Mut. Relief Asso. 29 Ohio St. 399. A railroad cannot take toll for any service rendered by it except by authority of law. People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243. 319, 23 N. E. 928; State ex rel. Childs v. Quo warranto is frequently used for the purpose of ousting foreign corporations from The right to collect tolls is a franchise exercising their franchises in another state, triable in quo warranto. and is held to be a proper remedy. State v. Boston, C. & M. R. Co. 25 Vt. 433; State ex rel. Clapp v. Fidelity & C. Ins. Co. 39 Minn. 538, 41 N. W. 108; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Western Mut. L. Ins. Co. 47 Ohio St. 167, 8 L. R. A. 129, 24 N. E. 392; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Fidelity & C. Ins. Co. 49 Ohio St. 440, 16 L. R. A. 611, 34 Am. St. Rep. 573, 31 N. E. 658; State ex rel. Phillips v. Fidelity & C. Co. 77 Iowa, 648, 42 N. W. 509. State v. Centreville Bridge Co. 18 Ala. 678; Chandler v. Montgomery County, 31 Ark. 25; People v. Volcano Canyon TollRoad Co. 100 Cal. 87, 34 Pac. 522; State v. Norwalk & D. Turnp. Co. 10 Conn. 166; Whelchel v. State, 76 Ga. 644; Com. v. Lexington & H. Turnp. Road Co. 6 B. Mon. 398; State v. Olcott, 6 N. H. 74; State v. Barron, 57 N. H. 498; People v. Hillsdale & C. Turnp. Road, 23 Wend. 254; Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. 537; People ex rel. The proceeding must be instituted by the M'Kinch v. Bristol & R. Turnp. Road, 23 sovereign on the information of the attorWend. 193; People ex rel. Bishop v. King-ney general, and when filed by the attorney ston & M. Turnp. Road Co. 23 Wend. 222, 35 Am. Dec. 551; Pixley v. Roanoke Nav. Co. 75 Va. 320. Valentine ex rel. Dudley v. Berrien Springs Water Power Co. 128 Mich. 280, 87 N. W. 370; Atty. Gen. v. Blossom, 1 Wis. 317; State v. Brown, 33 Miss. 500; State v. Commercial & R. Bank, 12 Smedes & M. 276. To use streets and highways. People ex rel. Warfield v. Sutter Street R. Co. 117 Cal. 606, 49 Pac. 736; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 38 L. R. A. 218, 62 Am. St. Rep. 742, 41 S. W. 955; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Seattle Gas & Electric Co. 28 Wash. general ex officio he exercises his own discretion, and, without leave of court, has the right at any time to file in the supreme court an information in the nature of quo warranto. V. King v. Trevenen, 3 Barn. & Ald. 482; Com. v. Union F. & M. Ins. Co. 5 Mass. 230, 4 Am. Dec. 50; State Paterson & H. Turnp. Co. 21 N. J. L. 9; State v. Douglas County Road Co. 10 Or. 198; State ex rel. Davis v. Smith, 32 Ind. 213; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; High, Extr. Legal Rem. § 707; Com. ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Walter, 83 Pa. 105, 24 Am. Rep. 154; Vanatta v. Delaware & B. B. R. Co. 38 N. J. L. 282. Where the information is properly filed by the attorney general to declare a public right, and the intervention of a private relator is not proper, if the information shows that it is filed on the relation of a private person that portion will be rejected as sur- by law, or for violation of its public duty, plusage. may disclaim or justify its action by appropriate plea. State v. Douglas County Road Co. 10 Or. 198; People v. Geneva College, 5 Wend. 211; State v. Charleston, 1 Mill Const. 36; Com. v. Fowler, 10 Mass. 290. Whenever the question of usurpation of a franchise by a corporation affects the public generally, and not a private person in particular, the state alone can act, and through its attorney general or other prosecuting officer. State v. Vincennes University, 5 Ind. 77; West v. Carolina L. Ins. Co. 31 Ark. 476; Com. v. Allegheny Bridge Co. 20 Pa. 185; Murphy v. Farmers' Bank, 20 Pa. 415; Com. ex rel. Banning v. Philadelphia, G. & N. R. Co. 20 Pa. 518; Com. ex rel. McLaughlin v. Cluley, 56 Pa. 270, 94 Am. Dec. 75; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; State v. Paterson & H. Turnp. Co. 21 N. J. L. 9; Ang. & A. Priv. Corp. § 777; 2 Morawetz, Priv. Corp. § 1015; 2 Kent, Com. 312, 313. It is not discretionary with the attorney general whether to file an information or not. 2 Selwyn, N. P. 7th Am. ed. 1177; State v. Harris, 3 Ark. 570, 36 Am. Dec. 460; State v. Brown, 33 Miss. 500; Com. v. Gill, 3 Whart. 228; Clark v. People, 15 Ill. 213; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Jones, 16 Fla. 306. Where the information is brought to oust a corporation of franchises never granted, but usurped, the respondent must either justify or disclaim. Buller, N. P. 211 A; State ex rel. Miller v. Utter, 14 N. J. L. 84; State v. Harris, 3 Ark. 570, 36 Am. Dec. 460; Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, 84 Ill. 426. The burden of justification, and the burden of proof, both rest upon respondent. People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243; State v. Harris, 3 Ark. 570, 36 Am. Dec. 460; Ang. & A. Priv. Corp. § 756; People ex rel. Judson v. Thacher, 55 N. Y. 529, 14 Am. Rep. 312; People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. River Raisin & L. E. R. Co. 12 Mich. 395, 86 Am. Dec. State ex rel. Lannes v. Atty. Gen. 30 La. 64; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Ann. 954. The duty of the attorney general to file informations ex officio is derived from the principles of the common law whenever a corporation has been guilty of misuser or nonuser, or illegally exercises franchises not belonging to it, just as it is the duty of the law officers of the state to prosecute crime without special direction therefor. State v. Southern P. R. Co. 24 Tex. 80. The information must be filed against the corporation. Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33; People ex rel. Cooney v. Peoria, 166 Ill. 517, 46 N. E. 1075; People ex rel. Lord v. Bruennemer, 168 Ill. 482, 48 N. E. 43. Judgment of ouster is equivalent to the judgment of seizure at common law, and is entered whenever the corporation usurps a franchise not given by law or charter. 5 Thomp. Corp. $ 6806; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33. The Missouri Constitution gives the right People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 15 Wend. to issue informations in the nature of quo 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33. warranto. The information has superseded the ancient writ while retaining many of its old characteristics. Wherever the information is filed by the state on the relation of the attorney general, and is brought against a corporation in its corporate name and character, the proceeding is a public prosecution. Atty. Gen. v. Great Northern R. Co. 6 Jur. N. S. 1006; Atty. Gen. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 35 Wis. 425; Ware v. Regent's Canal Co. 3 DeG. & J. 212; Atty. Gen. v. Mid-Kent R. Co. L. R. 3 Ch. 100; High, Extr. Legal Rem. 3d ed. § 654. It is only necessary for the information to show the public character of the proceeding, and to charge that respondent has misused, or not used its franchises, or illegally exercised franchises not authorized by its charter or by law. 5 Thomp. Corp. § 6797. A corporation summoned by writ of quo warranto to answer by what authority it State v. Merry, 3 Mo. 278; State v. McBride, 4 Mo. 303, 29 Am. Dec. 636; State v. St. Louis Perpetual Marine F. & L. Ins. Co. 8 Mo. 330; State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916; State ex rel. Mcllhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 382; State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State ex rel. Bornefeld v. Kupferle, 44 Mo. 154, 100 Am. Dec. 265. Our courts have adopted the English construction and practice, which authorizes a judgment of ouster and a fine, but only authorizes a judgment for relator for costs. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97. The old writ was a civil writ at the suit of the Crown. has misused, or not used, franchises grant- State ex rel. Norton v. Lupton, 64 Mo. ed thereto, or has illegally exercised fran- | 415, 27 Am. Rep. 253. chises not granted thereto, or not authorized The proceeding in Missouri is a civil ac tion, and is subject to the rules governing | State ex rel. Walker v. Powles, 136 Mo. 376, pleadings in civil cases. State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; State ex rel. Norton v. Lupton, 64 Mo. 415, 27 Am. Rep. 253; State ex rel. Brison v. Lingo, 26 Mo. 496. Pleadings in quo warranto are governed by the principles of the common law. State ex rel. Ewing v. Townsley, 56 Mo. 107. 37 S. W. 1124; State ex rel. Harris v. McCann, 88 Mo. 386, 13 Mo. App. 588; State ex rel. Ewing v. Townsley, 56 Mo. 107. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not prevent the state from enforcing regulations which may affect commerce between the states, but which prevent combinations and conspiracies against the laws of the state and the formation of monopolies, and the punishment and prevention of acts done wholly within the A proceeding in quo warranto may be filed by the attorney general without any re-state. lator. State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916. In this state the proceeding has always been regarded as a civil remedy. State ex rel. Norton v. Lupton, 64 Mo. 415, 27 Am. Rep. 253; State ex rel. Walker, v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 335, 41 S. W. 916; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State ex rel. Mcllhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; State ex rel. Fox v. Alt, 26 Mo. App. 673; 4 Bl. Com. 312; Cole, Informations, 172, 413; Com. v. Browne, 1 Serg. & R. 385; Commercial Bank v. State, 4 Smedes & M. 490; 2 Kyd, Corp. 439; Bank of Vincennes v. State, 1 Blackf. 272; Com. v. Birchett, 2 Va. Cas. 51; Rex v. Francis, 2 T. R. 484; Ang. & A. Priv. Corp. 686; People v. Richardson, 4 Cow. 102. When the attorney general files an information ex officio for a writ of quo warranto the writ goes as of right. State ex rel. Dearing v. Berkeley, 140 Mo. 184, 41 S. W. 732; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Balcom, 71 Mo. App. 27; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 38 L. R. A. 218, 62 Am. St. Rep. 742, 41 S. W. 955; State ex rel. McIlhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; State ex rel. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Invest. Asso. 142 Mo. 337, 41 S. W. 916; State ex rel. Brown v. McMillan, 108 Mo. 153, 18 S. W. 784; State ex rel. Harrison v. Frazier, 98 Mo. 426, 11 S. W. 793; State ex rel. Boyd v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198; Tyree v. Bing ham, 100 Mo. 451, 13 S. W. 952; State v. St. Louis Perpetual Marine, F. & L. Ins. Co. 8 Mo. 330. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 41 L. ed. 1105, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849; Iowa v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 425, 33 Fed. 391; State ex rel. Lamar v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 225; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. ed. 77; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 2 L. R. A. 289, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 357, 37 Fed. 567; Sands v. Manistee River Improv. Co. 123 U. S. 288, 295, 31 L. ed. 149, 151, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 84, 85, 24 L. ed. 377, 379, 380; Lindsay & P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 146, 154, 44 L. ed. 400, 408, 411, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 325; McCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo. 59, 35 L. R. A. 110, 33 S. W. 71, 174 U. S. 580, 43 L. ed. 1093, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 755; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 42 L. ed. 688, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Bagg v. Wilmington, C. & A. R. Co. 109 N. C. 279, 14 L. R. A. 596, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 803, 26 Am. St. Rep. 569, 14 S. E. 79; Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 12 L. R. A. 436, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 584, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 48 N. W. 98; Peoria & P. U. R. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 109 Ill. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605; Solan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 95 Iowa, 260, 28 L. R. A. 718, 58 Am. St. Rep. 430, 63 N. W. 692; Pearson v. International Distillery, 72 Iowa, 348, 34 N. W. 1; Graham v. Boston, H. & E. R. Co. 118 U. S. 161, 168, 30 L. ed. 196, 201, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1009; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 17 L. ed. 130; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. Boston & L. R. Corp. 136 U. S. 356, 34 L. ed. 363, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1004; Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri P. It is not necessary for the attorney gen- R. Co. 5 McCrary, 373, 23 Fed. 565; Con eral to insert the name of a relator. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; State cx rel. Lee v. Jenkins, 25 Mo. App. 484; State ex rel. Crow v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. 152 Mo. 1, 45 L. R. A. 363, 52 S. W. 595. sumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Harless, 131 Ind. 446, 15 L. R. A. 505, 29 N. E. 1062; Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Memphis, 37 C. C. A. 410, 96 Fed. 113; State v. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499; Pennsylvania Co. v. State, 142 Ind. 428, 41 N. E. 937; State v. Balti The burden of proof rests upon respond-more & O. R. Co. 24 W. Va. 783, 49 Am. ent. 5 Thomp, Corp. § 6797; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Hogan, 163 Mo. 43, 63 S. W. 378; Rep. 290; Nashville C. & St. L. R. Co. v. |