Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City
Citation | 13 S.W.2d 628,321 Mo. 969 |
Decision Date | 01 February 1929 |
Docket Number | 27223 |
Parties | Bellerive Investment Company et al., Appellants, v. Kansas City et al |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Samuel A. Dew Judge.
Affirmed.
Johnson Lucas & Graves and Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler for appellants.
(1) The ordinance is unreasonable and void on its face, because its enforcement would prevent appellants from legitimate use of their property, which would be equivalent to a taking and damaging without due process of law. There is no declaration of a nuisance. There is provided only a penalty. U.S Constitution, Sec. 1, 14th Amendment; Mo. Constitution, Secs. 4, 20, 21 and 30, Art. 2; State ex rel. Penrose v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 39; St. Louis v. Evraiff, 301 Mo. 231; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217; Ambler Realty Co. v. Euclid, 297 F. 313; Ex Parte Lerner, 240 Mo. 18; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 394; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466; St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527. (2) There cannot possibly be any menace or risk in keeping more than three automobiles which contain neither gasoline nor oil in the situation predicated, i. e., under sleeping or residence quarters; nor is the risk materially different, for example, between three and four or five automobiles with gasoline and oil. The alleged ordinance is therefore unreasonable and void, especially in utterly failing to distinguish between the automobiles having in or about them oil, gasoline and batteries and those not so equipped. (3) The affidavits put in evidence over the objection of plaintiffs were and are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. They do not tend to prove any allegation of the answer, nor are they in support of the ordinance. The answers practically admit all of the allegations of the petition. There is no mention in the ordinance of gasoline, oil, electricity or "live storage." All facts specifically alleged in the petition were, also, expressly admitted at the trial to be true.
John T. Barker, R. K. Ryland and A. R. Wolfe for respondents.
(1) The ordinance is constitutional and valid because it is in accord with predominant judicial opinion which holds that an ordinance of the general character of the one involved in this case is a valid exercise of the police power. State ex rel. Cadillac Co. v. Christopher, 298 S.W. 725; Opinion of the Justices of Supreme Court, 234 Mass. 597; Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477; People ex rel. v. Ericsson, 263 Ill. 368; McIntosh v. Johnson, 211 N.Y. 265. (2) The ordinance in question applies to automobiles as the word is commonly understood, and necessarily includes gasoline tank, electric storage battery and grease and oil as well as all other component parts of a complete automotive vehicle. The court will take judicial notice of the common fact that no automobile is free from grease, oil, gasoline, and storage battery, from the moment it leaves the assembling plant to the time it reaches the junk heap; in fact, such elements are a component part of every automobile. (3) The affidavits of a fire warden and fire chief as to the hazards necessarily connected with a stored automobile are wholly competent and highly relevant.
Seddon, C. Lindsay and Ellison, CC., concur.
SEDDON
This is a suit in equity wherein the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the municipality of Kansas City, and certain named administrative officers of said municipality, from enforcing an ordinance of said city, No. 44950, duly enacted by the common council of said city, and approved by the mayor of said city on March 30, 1923, which ordinance became effective and operative on the date of its approval by the mayor of Kansas City. The ordinance in question, omitting its title and caption, is as follows:
The plaintiff and appellant, Bellerive Investment Company, is a corporation, and is the owner and operator of a large family hotel and apartment building, containing about 300 rooms, situate at 214 East Armour Boulevard, within the corporate limits of said municipality. The plaintiff and appellant, Martha B. Bell, is the lessee and operator of a similar family hotel and apartment building, known as Rockhill Manor, containing about 100 rooms, situate at 43rd and Locust streets, within the corporate limits of said municipality. The plaintiff and appellant, Charles O. Jones, is the owner and operator of several similar apartment buildings, variously situated within the corporate limits of said municipality. The defendants and respondents herein, other than the municipal corporation named, are respectively, the mayor, the chief of police, the chief of the fire department, the chief inspector of the fire prevention division of the fire department, and the city counselor, of said municipality.
The petition alleges, among other matters:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. Kansas City
... ... Ex parte Williams, 345 Mo. 1121, 139 S.W.2d 485, 490; Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 13 S.W.2d 628, 636-637; City of St. Louis v. Southcombe, 320 Mo. 865, 8 S.W.2d 1001, 1003; District of Columbia ... ...
-
State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist. of St. Louis County
... ... Glover, 210 Mo. 502; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo ... 543; City of Lancaster v. Reed, 207 S.W. 868; ... Greenwood v. Railroad Co., 105 ... Co. v. Withernell, 290 Mo. 558; Gast Realty & Inv ... Co. v. Schneider, 296 Mo. 700; Hawkins v ... Smith, 242 Mo ... Legislature. Betz v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 284 ... S.W. 455, 314 Mo. 390; Reay v. Elmira Coal ... landowners were left uncompensated. Bellerive Inv. Co. v ... Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 13 S.W.2d 628, ruled an ... ...
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Anthony F ... Ittner , Judge ... Brockman, ... 321 Mo. 58, 12 S.W.2d 742, 746; Bellerive Investment Co ... v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 13 S.W.2d 628, 634, and ... ...
-
City of Springfield v. Stevens
... ... 1945, p. 1206; State v. Public Service Commission, ... 185 S.W.2d 347; Kansas City v. Sutton, 52 Mo.App ... 398; Thompson v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 334 Mo ... 958, 69 ... Holloway v. Knight, ... 323 Mo. 1241, 1248(4), 21 SW. 767, 770(5); Bellerive Inv ... Co. v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 987(7), 13 S.W.2d 628, ... As an ... ...