18 S.W.2d 900 (Mo. 1929), 29815, Meyers v. Kansas City
| Docket Nº | 29815 |
| Citation | 18 S.W.2d 900, 323 Mo. 200 |
| Opinion Judge | WALKER |
| Party Name | Emma J. Meyer v. Kansas City et al., Appellants |
| Attorney | John T. Barker and J. C. Petherbridge for appellants. Ashley & Gilbert for respondent. |
| Judge Panel | Walker, J. All concur, except Atwood, J., not sitting. |
| Case Date | June 29, 1929 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Missouri |
Page 900
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Allen C. Southern, Judge.
Affirmed.
(1) An ordinance which submits to the voters of the city, a proposition to vote bonds "for the construction, improvement and equipment of municipal docks and wharves," carries with it implied authority to use a part of the money so obtained to purchase a suitable site upon which to construct such docks and wharves, or else the bond issue would fail of its purpose. Sheidley v. Lynch, 95 Mo. 487; State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45; Hudgins v. School District, 312 Mo. 1; Beauchamp v. School District, 297 Mo. 64; King v. Maries County, 297 Mo. 488; State ex rel. Bybee v. Hackman, 276 Mo. 110; Clark v. Brookfield, 81 Mo. 503; Yegen v. Yellowstone County, 85 P. 704; Territory ex rel. v. Baxter, 83 P. 709; Dyer v. Mayor of Baltimore, 140 F. 880; Anderson v. Thomas, 117 So. 573; Linn v. Omaha, 76 Nebr. 552, 107 N.W. 983; Maxcy v. Oshkosh, 144 Wis. 238, 128 N.W. 899. (2) What was said about the use of the proceeds of the bonds in the case of Horsefall v. School District, 143 Mo.App. 541, relied upon by respondent, was mere obiter dictum; it did not control there and is not necessarily controlling here.
No part of the money realized from the sale of the bonds voted "for the construction, improvement and equipment of municipal docks and wharves" can be used for the purchase of a site, and any attempt to so use said money is a breach of trust, which will be enjoined at the suit of a taxpayer. Horsefall v. School District, 143 Mo.App. 541; Thompson v. St. Louis, 253 S.W. 969; Crampton v. Zabriskie, 25 L.Ed. 1070; 4 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4 Ed.) 4097, sec. 1767; Dillon on Mun. Corp. (4 Ed.) 110, sec. 914; Newmeyer v. Railroad Co., 52 Mo. 81; Wagner v. Meety, 69 Mo. 150.
OPINION
[323 Mo. 201] This is a suit by injunction whereby the respondent seeks to prevent Kansas City and others, appellants, from using a portion of an appropriation made by the council of that city, for the payment of which bonds have been issued, for "the construction, improvement and equipment of municipal docks and wharves," for the purchase of land along the Missouri River on which to construct municipal docks and wharves.
A demurrer was interposed to the petition filed herein, which was overruled by the circuit court. The appellants refused to plead further, stood upon the demurrer, and a decree was entered permanently enjoining the appellants from using any part of the proceeds arising from the sale of said bonds for the purpose stated. From this judgment the appellants perfected an appeal to this court.
The error assigned is the overruling of appellants' demurrer and the consequent entry of a judgment of permanent injunction against the appellants.
The issue is limited to the construction which should be given to the language of the ordinance adopted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
351 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1961), 48449, Kirkwood v. City of St. Louis
...land already owned by the city this resulted in a 'fraud being perpetrated upon the qualified voters.' They rely on Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900, where it was held that express authority to purchase a site for a public improvement has to be given before bond issue money......
-
85 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. 1935), City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.
...to be applied for the purpose for which the fund was created, and no other. Thompson v. St. Louis, 253 S.W. 972; Meyers v. Kansas City, 18 S.W.2d 900; Stephens v. Bragg City, 27 S.W.2d 1064. (4) Ordinance No. 31656 providing for the widening of Market Street was subject to repeal by implica......
-
207 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. 1948), 40205, City of St. Louis v. Cavanaugh
...the proceeds derived from the sale of bonds for purposes other than those voted for affirmatively by the people. Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900; Harding v. Board of Supr's. of Osceola County, 213 Iowa 560, 237 N.W. 625; Beers v. City of Watertown, 43 S.D. 14, 177 N.W. 502......
-
233 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. 1950), 41719, Bowman v. Kansas City
...station purposes. Thompson v. St. Louis, 253 S.W. 969; Stephens v. Bragg City, 224 Mo.App. 469, 27 S.W.2d 1063; Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900; St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co., 337 Mo. 238, 85 S.W.2d 21; Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65; Ewing v. Kansas Ci......
-
351 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1961), 48449, Kirkwood v. City of St. Louis
...land already owned by the city this resulted in a 'fraud being perpetrated upon the qualified voters.' They rely on Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900, where it was held that express authority to purchase a site for a public improvement has to be given before bond issue money......
-
85 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. 1935), City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.
...to be applied for the purpose for which the fund was created, and no other. Thompson v. St. Louis, 253 S.W. 972; Meyers v. Kansas City, 18 S.W.2d 900; Stephens v. Bragg City, 27 S.W.2d 1064. (4) Ordinance No. 31656 providing for the widening of Market Street was subject to repeal by implica......
-
207 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. 1948), 40205, City of St. Louis v. Cavanaugh
...the proceeds derived from the sale of bonds for purposes other than those voted for affirmatively by the people. Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900; Harding v. Board of Supr's. of Osceola County, 213 Iowa 560, 237 N.W. 625; Beers v. City of Watertown, 43 S.D. 14, 177 N.W. 502......
-
233 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. 1950), 41719, Bowman v. Kansas City
...station purposes. Thompson v. St. Louis, 253 S.W. 969; Stephens v. Bragg City, 224 Mo.App. 469, 27 S.W.2d 1063; Meyers v. Kansas City, 323 Mo. 200, 18 S.W.2d 900; St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co., 337 Mo. 238, 85 S.W.2d 21; Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65; Ewing v. Kansas Ci......