United States ex rel. Hill v. Cape Girardeau Co.

If the information had stated fully what the records of the court show, the question to be determined could have been raised on demurrer. True, the court is supposed to know by its record what has been done in a case before it, wherein supplemental or ancillary proceedings are sought; yet no intelligent review of its action could be had, if its judgment were based on records not brought forward or referred to in the ancillary pleadings. It is important that the grave propositions underlying the motion for this alternative writ should be clearly disclosed, and to do so an answer is needed.

When the answer appears, it may be that this court, if it feels at liberty to pass upon the questions de novo, will have to review the whole subject involved. It is not proper, at this stage of the inquiry, to discuss those questions. The alternative writ is allowed, in order that the whole subject, in its legal aspect, may be fairly before the court in a way for the final review, if desired, by the United States supreme court.

Let the writ go.