State v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1914
• Docket Number: No. 18013.,18013.
• Citation: 260 Mo. 489,168 S.W. 1144
• Parties: STATE ex rel. and to Use of KANSAS CITY v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

168 S.W. 1144

260 Mo. 489

STATE ex rel. and to Use of KANSAS CITY v. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO.

No. 18013.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 2, 1914.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1914.

RAILROADS (§ 98) — CROSSING STREETS — VIADUCTS — WIDENING STREETS — REASONABLENESS OF ORDINANCE.

On the construction of a union station in a city, certain property owners formed a corporation to build a viaduct along a street over defendant's tracks at a point where the street was about 60 feet wide. The street had a general width of 80 feet, but for a portion of the distance, including the space to be occupied by the viaduct, was of various widths from 60 to 70 feet. By permission of the city the viaduct was constructed to the full width of the street, and after this, the station having been completed, an ordinance was adopted widening the street to 80 feet, and another ordinance passed requiring defendant terminal railway company to widen the viaduct, so as to make it conform to the new width of the street. Held that, in the absence of an actual test of the capacity of the streets leading to and in the immediate vicinity of the station, to accommodate the traffic, the latter ordinance was void for unreasonableness.

In Banc. Mandamus by the State, on the relation and to the use of Kansas City, against the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company. Peremptory writ denied, and alternative writ recalled and quashed.

A. F. Evans and J. W. Garner, both of Kansas City, for relator. Samuel W. Moore and Samuel W. Sawyer, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

WALKER, J.

This is a mandamus proceeding instituted in this court by the Attorney General, to the use of the parties mentioned, to compel the respondent to widen and pave the Main street viaduct in Kansas City, from the north line of its right of way, as it crosses said street, south to a point where said street would intersect with Twenty-Third street, if extended westerly to Main. The alternative writ was issued, and as no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the pleadings (which cover 65 pages of printed matter) they will be put aside, with the brief statement that they were sufficient to present the law and facts contended for by the respective parties.

Issues of fact being presented by the pleadings, this court appointed R. E. Ball, Esq., of the Kansas City bar, to take the testimony and report the same to this court. In pursuance to said order, our learned commissioner duly qualified and proceeded to discharge the important duties so imposed upon him. In due time he took the testimony, covering something like 500 pages of printed matter, and maps, plats, profiles, photographs, etc., I know not how many, yet many times more voluminous than the printed matter, and in due time reported the same to this court, for all of which we extend to him our sincere thanks. The evidence reported by the commissioner, in so far as necessary, under the view we take of the case, shows substantially the following facts:

That under ordinance the new Union Station at Kansas City had been located on Main street, between Twenty-First and Twenty-Third streets; that Main was the principal street running north and south...