Woodmansee v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 29 October 1940
• Docket Number: 37457
• Citation: 144 S.W.2d 137,346 Mo. 919
• Parties: J. E. Woodmansee, Appellant, v. Kansas City, a Municipal Corporation, and Horace R. McMorris, Director of Finance
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

144 S.W.2d 137

346 Mo. 919

J. E. Woodmansee, Appellant, v. Kansas City, a Municipal Corporation, and Horace R. McMorris, Director of Finance

No. 37457

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 29, 1940

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. A. A. Ridge, Judge.

Affirmed.

William C. Hogin and Warrick, Koontz & Hazard for appellant.

(1) The court erred in holding that the public market of Kansas City is a public utility or public service. State ex rel Kansas City v. O'Rear, 210 S.W. 392; Charter of Kansas City, Art. 1, Sec. 1, subsection 7, Art. IV, Sec. 107. (2) The court erred in holding that the authorized market revenue bonds are legal and valid; for the reason that if such public market and the proposed extension thereof is a public utility or public service within the meaning of subsection 7, Section 1, Article I of the charter of Kansas City, then under the provisions of Section 107, Article IV of the charter of Kansas City, such bonds may be issued only in accordance with Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri, requiring submission to the voters. Charter of Kansas City, Art. I, Sec. 1, subsection 7, Art. IV, Sec. 107; Mo. Const., Art. X, Sec. 12; Exter v. Kramer, 291 S.W. 471; Webb v. Dorlac, 75 Colo. 49, 224 P. 220; 43 C. J., pp. 195, 197, secs. 192, 196. (3) The court erred in finding and holding that said public market revenue bonds do not constitute an indebtedness of the defendant city within the meaning of Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri. Mo. Const., Art. X, Sec. 12. (4) The court erred in finding that there was a necessity for the proposed extension of the present market of Kansas City, in order to make the present market of the city adequate to serve and perform the functions it was originally intended to serve. State ex rel. Kansas City v. O'Rear, 210 S.W. 392; Grossman v. Pub. Water Supply, No. 1 of Clay County, 96 S.W.2d 701; Haesloop v. Charleston, 123 S.C. 272, 115 S.E. 596. (5) The court erred in holding said authorized public market revenue bonds of Kansas City legal and valid for the reason that the said ordinance and bonds propose an illegal diversion of the income and revenue of the city in violation of the Constitution of Missouri and the charter of Kansas City. Sec. 12, Art. X, Mo. Const.; Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 558, 41 S.W.2d 158; Hagler v. Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 751; Sager v. Stanberry, 78 S.W.2d 431; Garrett v Swanson, 216 Cal. 220; Reimer v. Holyoke, 33 Colo. 573; Fjeldsted v. Ogden City, 28 P.2d 144; Wadsworth v. Santaquin City, 28 P.2d 161. (6) The court erred in holding said Ordinance No. 6102 and the bonds authorized thereby are legal and valid, for the reason that Section 6 of said Ordinance and particularly Subsection (D) of Section 6 violate the constitutional limitation imposed by Section 12, Article X of the Constitution. Sec. 12, Art. X, Mo. Const.; Bell v. Fayette, 325 Mo. 75, 28 S.W.2d 356; State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W.2d 367; State ex rel. Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 336 Mo. 1104, 82 S.W.2d 37; Grossman v. Public Water Supply District No. 1 of Clay County, 339 Mo. 344, 96 S.W.2d 701; Hight v. Harrisonville, 328 Mo. 558, 41 S.W.2d 158; Hagler v. Salem, 333 Mo. 330, 62 S.W.2d 751; Sager v. Stanberry, 78 S.W.2d 431; Garrett v. Swanson, 216 Cal. 220; Reimer v. Holyoke, 33 Colo. 573; Fjeldsted v. Ogden City, 28 P.2d 144; Wadsworth v. Santaquin City, 28 P.2d 161.

William E. Kemp, John J. Cosgrove and Bowersock, Fizzell & Rhodes for defendants.

(1) The operation of the public market of Kansas City constitutes a public purpose. Such market is a public utility or service within the meaning of Subsection 7, Section 1, Article I of the charter of Kansas City. (a) The operation of the public market of Kansas City constitutes a public purpose. Sec. 7572, R. S. 1929; Secs. 39, 41, Art. III, Charter of K. C.; St. Louis v. Jackson, 25 Mo. 37; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. 547; Halbruegger v. St. Louis, 302 Mo. 573, 262 S.W. 379; Dysart v. St. Louis, 321 Mo. 514, 11 S.W.2d 1045; State ex rel. Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 336 Mo. 1104, 82 S.W.2d 37; Bank v. Bell, 62 Cal.App. 320, 217 P. 538; Jacksonville v. Lewith, 26 Fla. 163, 7 So. 885; Caldwell v. Alton, 33 Ill. 416; Spaulding v. City of Lowell, 23 Pick. 71; Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344; Taggart v. Detroit, 71 Mich. 92, 38 N.W. 714; Smith v. Newbern, 70 N.C. 14; Le Roy v. Elizabeth City, 166 N.C. 93, 81 S.E. 1072; Ketchum v. Buffalo, 21 Barb. 294, affirmed 14 N.Y. 356; 2 Dillon on Mun. Corporations (5 Ed.), secs. 699, 700, 701; 3 McQuillin on Mun. Corporations (2 Ed.), sec. 1063. (b) The public market of Kansas City constitutes a "public utility or service" within the meaning of Subsection 7, Section 1, Article I of the charter of Kansas City, which authorizes the city to issue its bonds "solely upon the credit or income derived" from "any public utility or service owned or operated by the City." State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301, 220 N.W. 273; Capen v. Portland, 112 Ore. 14, 228 P. 105; City of Belton v. Ellis, 254 S.W. 1023; Moore v. Logan, 10 S.W.2d 429; City of Denton v. Denton Home Ice Co., 18 S.W.2d 606; State ex rel. Chandler v. Jackson, 121 Ohio St. 186, 167 N.E. 396; Denton v. Sapulpa, 78 Okla. 178, 189 P. 532; Derr v. Fairview, 121 Okla. 23, 247 P. 45. The general power vested in the city to issue its revenue bonds authorizes the council to determine all of the details of the bonds. Taylor v. Dimmitt, 336 Mo. 336, 78 S.W.2d 841; State ex rel. City of Memphis v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670, 202 S.W. 7. (2) Since the public market of Kansas City constitutes a public utility or service within the meaning of Subsection 7, Section 1, Article I of the charter, the revenue bonds in question may be issued under such provision of the charter without regard to the provisions of Section 107, Article IV of the charter. (3) The public market revenue bonds of Kansas City do not constitute indebtedness of Kansas City within the meaning of Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of Missouri. Bell v. Fayette, 325 Mo. 75, 28 S.W.2d 356; State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W.2d 367; State ex rel. Excelsior Springs v. Smith, 336 Mo. 1104, 82 S.W.2d 37; Grossman v. Public Water Supply District No. 1 of Clay County, 339 Mo. 344, 96 S.W.2d 701. (4) The public market revenue bonds in question do not call for any illegal diversion of the income and revenue of Kansas City. Grossman v. Public Water Supply District, 339 Mo. 344, 96 S.W.2d 701. (5) The provisions of Subsection D, Section 6 of Ordinance No. 6102 are legal and valid. State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W.2d 367. (6) Section 6 of Ordinance No. 6102 does not violate any of the provisions of the charter of Kansas City.

E. A. Barbour, Jr., amicus curiae.

(1) The charter of Kansas City was written and adopted under authority granted by Section 16, Article IX. Constitution of Missouri. (2) The making and adopting of a city charter under constitutional authority is a legislative function. Tremayne v. St. Louis, 6 S.W.2d 935. Hence, such a charter has the force and effect of a city charter directly conferred by the State Legislature. State ex rel. v. Field, 99 Mo. 352; Kansas City v. Field, 270 Mo. 500, 194 S.W. 39. (3) The powers granted by Section 16, Article IV, Constitution of Missouri, are continuing, and a city having once adopted a charter, does not exhaust such grant. Monow v. Kansas City, 186 Mo. 675. (4) Such a charter, as well as the ordinances of such a city, to be voted must always be in harmony with the Constitution and laws of this State. State ex rel. v. Telephone Co., 189 Mo. 83; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 6 S.W.2d 935. Hence, when ordinances or charter provisions are, or become, in conflict with prior or subsequent statutes, or state policy, or with the Constitution, they are, or become, void. State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583. (5) Cities in Missouri, including those cities whose charter have been promulgated and adopted by the voters of such cities under constitutional grant, are local governments with delegated powers only. Evans v. McFarland, 186 Mo. 722. Hence, they possess and can exercise the following powers and no others: (a) Those expressly granted; (b) those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; (c) those essential, not simply convenient, but indispensable, to carry out the powers expressly conferred. And any fair, reasonable doubt as to the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the municipality, and the power is denied. Taylor v. Dimmitt, 78 S.W.2d 843; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 309; St. Louis v. Telephone Co. 96 Mo. 613; State v. McWilliams, 74 S.W.2d 364; Pierce v. Hentchel, 180 S.W. 1027. (6) Grant of power to a city by charter or by statute must be strictly construed. Exter v. Kramer, 291 S.W. 469, 316 Mo. 762 State ex rel. v. Power Co., 313 Mo. 283, 281 S.W. 709. (7) The sole repositories of the powers, and their limitations, possessed by a city are, the Constitution, the charter, and the applicable general statutes. (8) Relative to the power of Kansas City to pass Ordinance No. 6102 authorizing the issuance of public market revenue bonds in the amount of $ 750,000, the applicability statutory charter and constitutional provisions are: Secs. 7572, 7573, R. S. 1929; Sess. Acts 1891, p. 66; Art. I, Sec. 1, Subsec. 7, Charter K. C.; Art. IV, Sec. 107, Charter K. C.

OPINION

Gantt, J.

Class suit by a taxpayer to restrain Kansas City and its Director of Finance from issuing and selling certain bonds. Permanent iniunction was denied and the petition dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

For seventy-five years the city owned and maintained the public market, consisting...