Barker v. St. Louis County

• Decision Date: 21 April 1937
• Docket Number: 34332
• Parties: Carl Barker, Appellant, v. St. Louis County
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

104 S.W.2d 371

340 Mo. 986

Carl Barker, Appellant, v. St. Louis County

No. 34332

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 21, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Julius R Nolte, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Thompson Mitchell, Thompson & Young, C. P. Berry and Calvin A. Brown for appellant.

(1) The statute (Sec. 7840, R. S. 1929), under which the condemnation proceedings were had by and in the county court of St. Louis county, and said proceedings are invalid and void because they conflict with the provisions of Section 21, Article II, of the Missouri Constitution. Louisiana & F. P. Road Co v. Pickett, 25 Mo. 539; Chicago, F. S. & C. Railroad Co. v. McGrew, 104 Mo. 290, 15 S.W. 931; Sedalia v Railroad Co., 17 Mo.App. 109; Tremayne v. St Louis, 320 Mo. 120, 6 S.W.2d 935; McGrew v. Paving Co., 247 Mo. 549, 155 S.W. 411; Householder v. Kansas City, 83 Mo. 488; Greenwell v. Wills & Sons, 210 Mo.App. 651, 239 S.W. 578; Redman v. Railroad, 33 N.J.Eq. 165; Kime v. Cass County, 71 Neb. 677, 101 N.W. 2; Carrico v. Calvin, 92 Ky. 342, 17 S.W. 854; Bushart v. Fulton County, 183 Ky. 471, 209 S.W. 499; Watkins v. Board of Commissioners, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 525; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 485, 41 S.W. 1094, 46 S.W. 976, quoting from People ex rel. v. Allen, 42 N.Y. 384; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 302, 53 S.W. 907; Watkins v. Board of Comrs., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 525; Johnstone v. Ry. Co., 245 Mich. 65, 222 N.W. 325, 67 A. L. R. 383; Kennet, etc., Railroad Co. v. Senter, 83 Mo.App. 184. Payment is condition precedent to obtaining title; State ex rel. v. Lubke, 15 Mo.App. 152; Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 103 U.S. 599, 26 L.Ed. 550; United States v. Railroad Co., 176 F. 969; Poulan v. Railroad Co., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S.E. 657; Athens Terminal Co. v. Athens Fdy. & Mach. Works, 129 Ga. 393, 58 S.E. 891; Big Lost River Irr. Co. v. Davidson, 21 Idaho 160, 121 P. 88; Chicago, K. & W. Railroad Co. v. Watkins, 43 Kan. 50, 22 P. 985; St. Joseph & D. C. Railroad Co. v. Callender, 13 Kan. 496; Williams v. Wedding, 165 Ky. 361, 176 S.W. 1176; Bushart v. Fulton County, 183 Ky. 471, 209 S.W. 499; Great Northern Railroad Co. v. Benjamin, 51 Mont. 167, 149 P. 968; Martin v. Tyler, 4 N.D. 278, 60 N.W. 392; Fischer v. Railroad Co., 175 Pa. St. 554, 34 A. 860; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Donahoo, 59 Tex. 128; McCammon & Lang Lbr. Co. v. Railroad Co., 104 Tex. 8, 133 S.W. 247; McAulay v. Railroad Co., 33 Vt. 311; White v. Stout, 72 Wash. 62, 129 P. 917; Jasper Land & Imp. Co. v. Kansas City, 293 Mo. 679, 239 S.W. 864; Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 183, 35 S.W. 600; Buchanan v. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 682; Carpenter v. St. Joseph, 263 Mo. 705; Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 530, 108 S.W. 14; St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Fowler, 113 Mo. 458, 20 S.W. 1073; State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 16, 256 S.W. 476; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 302; Ring v. Miss. River Bridge Co., 57 Mo. 498; Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Southern, etc., Tel. Co., 46 Ga. 43; Searl v. School Dist., 133 U.S. 562, 33 L.Ed. 740; Rudder v. Limestone County, 220 Ala. 485, 125 So. 670; Redman v. Railroad Co., 33 N.J.Eq. 165; Steinhart v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. 575, 70 P. 629; People ex rel. v. Kelly, 361 Ill. 54, 196 N.E. 796; Green v. Railroad Co., 82 Mo. 657; Morgan v. Willman, 318 Mo. 151, 1 S.W.2d 193; Security Co. v. Rice, 215 Cal. 263, 9 P.2d 817; Crane v. Harrison, 40 Idaho 229, 232 P. 578; 1 Nichols, Em. Dom. (2 Ed.), sec. 213; Walther v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277; Provolt v. Railroad Co., 57 Mo. 256; Zimmerman v. Railroad Co., 144 F. 622; Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 204, 22 L.Ed. 614; 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 538; Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich. 198, 223 N.W. 159, 71 A. L. R. 1244; Sec. 21, Art, II, Mo. Const. Requirement that property owner file claim is not a Statute of Limitation: Sec. 7840, R. S. 1929; Battle v. Shivers, 39 Ga. 405; Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480; Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 623, 29 L.Ed. 485; 37 C. J. 684, sec. 1; Boyce v. Railroad Co., 168 Mo. 583, 68 S.W. 920. Requirement that property owner file claim is unconstitutional. Lewis, Em. Dom. (3 Ed.), sec. 966; 2 Nichols, Em. Dom. (2 Ed.), sec. 344; Levee Comrs. v. Dancy, 65 Miss. 335, 3 So. 568; Kincaid v. Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 P. 507; Hanks v. Port Arthur, 48 S.W.2d 944; Moore v. Gar Creek Drain. Dist., 266 Ill. 399, 107 N.E. 643; People v. McRoberts, 62 Ill. 38; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 117, 25 S.W. 225; State v. Hooker, 22 Okla. 712, 98 P. 967; Roe v. Cook County, 358 Ill. 568, 193 N.E. 473; People v. Chicago, 360 Ill. 25, 195 N.E. 453; Mt. Carmel Public Utility Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 297 Ill. 303, 130 N.E. 695; State ex rel. v. Workmen's Comp. Comm., 318 Mo. 1004, 2 S.W.2d 796; Stevens v. Benson, 50 Ore. 269, 91 P. 577; Hammett v. Hodges, 104 Ark. 510, 149 S.W. 667; Cooley, Constl. Lim. (8 Ed.), 1206-1207; Bradley v. Union Bridge & Const. Co., 185 F. 546; Williams v. Norman, 85 Okla. 230, 205 P. 144; Hayward v. Snohomish County, 11 Wash. 429, 39 P. 652; Newell v. Smith, 15 Wis. 101; Pearson v. Johnson, 54 Miss. 259; Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 306, 67 L.Ed. 669; Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia Elec. Co., 172 U.S. 491, 43 L.Ed. 521, 527; Shanley v. Herold, 141 F. 423, 428; Cobble v. Royal Neighbors, 291 Mo. 137, 236 S.W. 306; Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, 78 L.Ed. 142; Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 530, 108 S.W. 14; St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Fowler, 113 Mo. 473, 20 S.W. 1073; Morgan v. Willmann, 318 Mo. 151, 1 S.W.2d 193; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 302; Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480; People ex rel. v. Kelly, 361 Ill. 54, 196 N.E. 797; Redman v. Railroad Co., 33 N.J.Eq. 168; Martin v. Tyler, 4 N.D. 295, 60 N.W. 392, 25 L. R. A. 838; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 320 Mo. 120, 6 S.W.2d 940, quoting from Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 117, 25 S.W. 225; 1 Nichols, Em. Dom. (2 Ed.), sec. 213; Watkins v. Board of Comrs., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523. Constitutional provisions are exclusive: Sec. 21, Art. II, Mo. Const.; Duncan v. Railroad Co., 68 W.Va. 293, 69 S.E. 1006; Alton, etc., Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 268 Ill. 68, 108 N.E. 804; People v. Elkus, 59 Cal.App. 396, 211 P. 38; Coffin v. Thompson, 97 Mich. 188, 56 N.W. 567, 21 L. R. A. 662; Livesley v. Litchfield, 47 Ore. 248, 83 P. 145; Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 54; People v. English, 139 Ill. 622, 29 N.E. 678; People v. Czarnecki, 265 Ill. 489, 107 N.E. 184; Board of Election Comm. v. Knight, 187 Ind. 108, 117 N.E. 568; Bledsoe v. Haney, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 285, 122 S.W. 457; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Graham, 147 Mo. 257, 48 S.W. 910; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 115, 70 S.W. 710; Owen v. Baer, 154 Mo. 447, 55 S.W. 644; State v. Tucson Gas Co., 15 Ariz. 294, 138 P. 782; Hanks v. Port Arthur, 48 S.W.2d 944; Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 530, 108 S.W. 14; St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Fowler, 113 Mo. 473, 20 S.W. 1073; Redman v. Railroad Co., 33 N.J.Eq. 165; Kincaid v. Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 P. 504; Levee Commrs. v. Dancy, 65 Miss. 335, 3 So. 568; Morgan v. Willmann, 318 Mo. 151, 1 S.W.2d 193; Moore v. Gar Creek Drain. Dist., 266 Ill. 399, 107 N.E. 643. (2) The statute (Sec. 7840, R. S. 1929) and the proceedings by and in the county court by which plaintiff's property was taken from him are void, because they conflict with the due process of law clauses contained in Section 30 of Article II of the Missouri Constitution, which provides "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits any state from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." What is due process of law? Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 100, 53 L.Ed. 106; Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 576; Wilcox v. Phillips, 260 Mo. 679; State ex rel. v. North, 304 Mo. 620; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 438, 76 L.Ed. 383; Jacob v. Roberts, 223 U.S. 265, 56 L.Ed. 431; Garfield v. United States, 211 U.S. 262, 53 L.Ed. 175; Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 436, 45 L.Ed. 1170; Ray v. Norseworthy, 90 U.S. 136, 23 L.Ed. 118; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 68, 77 L.Ed. 170; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 105, 24 L.Ed. 620; Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 234, 41 L.Ed. 984; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 666, 69 L.Ed. 1145; Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 368, 75 L.Ed. 1122; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 707, 75 L.Ed. 1362; State ex rel. v. McElhinney, 241 Mo. 592. Due process protects against legislative enactment: Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 233, 41 L.Ed. 985; Georgia Power Co. v. Decatur, 281 U.S. 505, 74 L.Ed. 1003; Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 297, 49 L.Ed. 209; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 113, 79 L.Ed. 794; Norman v. Heist, 5 Watts. & Serg. 193; Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 574; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 3 L.Ed. 178; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 294, 45 L.Ed. 867; Macallen Co. v. Com., 279 U.S. 629, 73 L.Ed. 880; Lowry v. Rainwater, 70 Mo. 157. Due process affords property the same protection as life and liberty: Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 58 L.Ed. 1129; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 17, 59 L.Ed. 447; Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 577, quoting with approval from Wynshamer v. People, 3 Kern, 378. Due process as applied to the facts of this case: Riverside Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 193, 59 L.Ed. 912; Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 234, 41 L.Ed. 984; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524, 55 L.Ed. 838; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 203, 50 L.Ed. 153; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 77 L.Ed. 158; Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U.S. 366, 74 L.Ed. 910; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 277, 43 L.Ed. 447; Scott v. Toledo, 36 F. 396; Missouri K. & T. Railroad Co. v. Oklahoma, 271 U.S. 308, 70 L.Ed. 961; State v. Stanolind Pipe L. Co., 249 N.W. 369; Galveston, M. &...