144 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. 1940), 37457, Woodmansee v. Kansas City

Docket Nº37457
Citation144 S.W.2d 137, 346 Mo. 919
Opinion JudgeGantt, J.
Party NameJ. E. Woodmansee, Appellant, v. Kansas City, a Municipal Corporation, and Horace R. McMorris, Director of Finance
AttorneyWilliam C. Hogin and Warrick, Koontz & Hazard for appellant. William E. Kemp, John J. Cosgrove and Bowersock, Fizzell & Rhodes for defendants. E. A. Barbour, Jr., amicus curiae.
Case DateOctober 29, 1940
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 137

144 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. 1940)

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial