147 S.W. 998 (Mo. 1912), City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner

Citation147 S.W. 998, 243 Mo. 217
Opinion JudgeBOND, C. Per Curiam.
Party NameCITY OF ST. LOUIS v. HENRY DREISOERNER, Appellant
AttorneyLeahy, Saunders & Barth for appellant. Lambert E. Walther and Byron F. Babbitt for respondent.
Judge PanelBOND, C. Brown, C., concurs.
Case DateMay 31, 1912
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 998

147 S.W. 998 (Mo. 1912)

243 Mo. 217

CITY OF ST. LOUIS

v.

HENRY DREISOERNER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

May 31, 1912

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. -- Hon. Wilson Taylor, Judge.

Reversed.

Leahy, Saunders & Barth for appellant.

(1) This ordinance is in flat conflict with Laws 1871, p. 189, sec. 1. Also see Woerner's Rev. Code of St. Louis 1907, pp. 170-173, which undertakes to regulate the same subject-matter. The proviso in this ordinance is a curiosity. Apparently it gives the municipal assembly the right to establish nuisances by permit, and thereby ruin the property of others without compensation, whereas the ordinance itself destroys, without compensation, property which is not and could never be a nuisance. City ordinances must conform to State laws. Sec. 23, art. 9, Constitution; R. S. 1909, sec. 9582; art. 3, sec. 26, St. Louis Charter; St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583; St. Louis v. Tielkemeyer, 226 Mo. 130; State v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 15; St. Louis v. Williams, 235 Mo. 503; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131. (2) The ordinance is unconstitutional, because in conflict with secs. 21 and 30, art. 2, Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that it undertakes to deprive appellant of his property without any compensation, and without due process of law. St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466. (3) The ordinance is null and void, because it undertakes to declare something to be a nuisance which is not a nuisance at common law, and, under St. Louis v. Packing Co., 141 Mo. 375, St. Louis has no power to declare by ordinance anything to be a nuisance which is not a nuisance at common law. This ordinance undertakes to forbid all manufacturing within a distance of 600 feet of Tower Grove Park. Few forms of manufacturing are a nuisance, but under this ordinance the knitting of socks by three women, in one house, within 600 feet of the park, earning their living thereby, would be illegal. (4) The ordinance is unreasonable, and for that reason null and void. It applies only to Tower Grove Park.

Lambert E. Walther and Byron F. Babbitt for respondent.

(1) This ordinance, even though it be a police regulation, is entitled to a fair and reasonable construction, having in mind all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Railroad v. Carlinville, 103 Ill.App. 251; 28 Cyc. 38. (2) The ordinance in controversy is fair and reasonable, and is a proper exercise by the city of St. Louis of its police power, both under art. 9, secs. 20-25, of the State Constitution; and also under art. 3, sec. 26, subdivision 5, and paragraphs 6 to 14. St. Louis v. Frein, 9 Mo.App. 590; State v. Beattie, 16 Mo.App. 131; City v. Russell, 116 Mo. 248; St. Louis v. Jackson, 27 Mo. 37; Ex parte Lacey, 38 L. R. A. 640; Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15 Wendl. (N. Y.) 397; McKnight v. Toronto, 3 Ont. Reps. 284; Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 practice notes
  • 117 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. 1938), 35804, Ryan v. City of Warrensburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 26 de Maio de 1938
    ...pp. 904, 921; State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, 256 S.W. 475; Gunning v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 200, 137 S.W. 961; St. Louis v. Dreisoner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 999; Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 13 S.W.2d 634; Nigro v. Kansas City, 27 S.W.2d 1030; State ex rel. v. Schwartz, 82 S.W.2d ......
  • 138 S.W.2d 1020 (Mo. 1940), 36761, Ploch v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 de Abril de 1940
    ...& Baking Co. v. St. Louis, 106 S.W.2d 435; Siemens v. Shreeve, 296 S.W. 415; State v. Kinsey, 282 S.W. 439; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 223; Brookfield v. Tooey, 141 Mo. 619; R. S. 1929, sec. 7596. (4) The enforcement of the ordinance taxing the sale of cigarettes by the city of S......
  • 16 S.W.2d 595 (Mo. 1929), 28706, Lux v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 11 de Maio de 1929
    ...truth: Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. loc. cit. 25, 218 S.W. 331; St. Louis v. Nash (Mo. Sup.) 260 S.W. 985; St. Page 597 Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 998, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 177; Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99, 137 S.W. 929. There is, therefore, no unauthorized delegat......
  • 168 S.W. 721 (Mo. 1914), City of St. Louis v. Bell Place Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 de Junho de 1914
    ...Brother Real Estate Co., 180 Mo. 309, l. c. 322; City of St. Louis v. King, 226 Mo. 334, l. c. 345; and City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, l. c. 223.] This rule, applied in determining what a law means, or what power it grants, does not militate against another well-known rule t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 cases
  • 117 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. 1938), 35804, Ryan v. City of Warrensburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 26 de Maio de 1938
    ...pp. 904, 921; State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, 256 S.W. 475; Gunning v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 200, 137 S.W. 961; St. Louis v. Dreisoner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 999; Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 13 S.W.2d 634; Nigro v. Kansas City, 27 S.W.2d 1030; State ex rel. v. Schwartz, 82 S.W.2d ......
  • 138 S.W.2d 1020 (Mo. 1940), 36761, Ploch v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 de Abril de 1940
    ...& Baking Co. v. St. Louis, 106 S.W.2d 435; Siemens v. Shreeve, 296 S.W. 415; State v. Kinsey, 282 S.W. 439; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 223; Brookfield v. Tooey, 141 Mo. 619; R. S. 1929, sec. 7596. (4) The enforcement of the ordinance taxing the sale of cigarettes by the city of S......
  • 16 S.W.2d 595 (Mo. 1929), 28706, Lux v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 11 de Maio de 1929
    ...truth: Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. loc. cit. 25, 218 S.W. 331; St. Louis v. Nash (Mo. Sup.) 260 S.W. 985; St. Page 597 Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 998, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 177; Gunning Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 235 Mo. 99, 137 S.W. 929. There is, therefore, no unauthorized delegat......
  • 168 S.W. 721 (Mo. 1914), City of St. Louis v. Bell Place Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 de Junho de 1914
    ...Brother Real Estate Co., 180 Mo. 309, l. c. 322; City of St. Louis v. King, 226 Mo. 334, l. c. 345; and City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, l. c. 223.] This rule, applied in determining what a law means, or what power it grants, does not militate against another well-known rule t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results