211 S.W. 667 (Mo. 1919), State ex rel. Bruenting Realty Company v. Thomas

Citation211 S.W. 667, 278 Mo. 85
Opinion JudgeBOND, C. J.
Party NameTHE STATE ex rel. BRUENTING REALTY COMPANY et al. v. WILLIAM O. THOMAS, Judge of Circuit Court, et al
AttorneyReinhardt & Schibsby for plaintiffs. John G. Park also for plaintiffs. E. M. Harber, City Counselor, M. A. Fyke and J. C. Petherbridge, Assistant City Counselors, for defendants.
Judge PanelBOND, C. J. Woodson, J., not sitting.
Case DateApril 26, 1919
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 667

211 S.W. 667 (Mo. 1919)

278 Mo. 85

THE STATE ex rel. BRUENTING REALTY COMPANY et al.

v.

WILLIAM O. THOMAS, Judge of Circuit Court, et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 26, 1919

Writ quashed.

Reinhardt & Schibsby for plaintiffs.

(1) The city has no express power under the charter to condemn an existing viaduct and railroad and pay therefor by special assessments. Kansas City Charter, art. 1, sec. 1, pp. 95, 96, 97; art. 13, sec. 1, pp. 398 to 443; art. 6, sec. 1, p. 252; art. 6, sec. 2, pp. 254, 255; art. 6, sec. 3, p. 260; art 6, sec. 17, pp. 279, 280; art. 8, sec. 28, pp. 351, 352; Kansas City v. Hyde, 196 Mo. 498. (2) The city does not have implied power to condemn an existing viaduct and railroad and pay therefor by special assessment. DeGeofroy v. Merchants Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 719; Kansas City Charter, art. 6, sec. 17, pp. 279-280; Kiley v. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 376; Leach v. Cargill, 60 Mo. 316; Westport v. Mastin, 62 Mo.App. 647; West v. Porter, 89 Mo.App. 153; St. Louis v. Koch, 169 Mo. 587; Dillon on Mun. Corp. (5 Ed.) secs. 237, 238, 1024, 1377, 1402; St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 568; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 320. (3) The city cannot condemn property for public use already dedicated for the same purpose. St. Louis v. Moore, 190 S.W. 867. (4) The city and the viaduct company have agreed upon a price for the viaduct contrary to the express provision of the charter, that a jury must ascertain and assess the damages. (5) The city is attempting to use its power of eminent domain to acquire private property to let and lease to private parties. (6) This is not a special benefit to the property in the benefit district, but an indirect method to raise money for the acquisition of the viaduct.

John G. Park also for plaintiffs.

(1) The power to impose special assessments is purely statutory and must be strictly construed. Leach v. Cargill, 60 Mo. 316; St. Louis v. Koch, 169 Mo. 587; Westport v. Mastin, 62 Mo.App. 647. Where the law is of doubtful meaning, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the board or sovereignty attempting to levy the tax. St. Louis v. Realty Co., 259 Mo. 126. (2) The only plain, explicit provision for the special assessments for viaducts is Charter, art. 8, sec. 28, p. 351. The word "constructing" in that section is the equivalent of "purchasing" or "providing." State ex rel. Crow v. St. Louis, 169 Mo. 31; Schwabe v. Moore, 187 Mo.App. 79; City of Lincoln v. St. Ry., 67 Neb. 469; Gamble v. Water Co., 123 N.Y. 91, 9 L.R.A. 527; Thompson v. Railroad, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625; Seymour v. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 138; Ostrander v. Salmon, 20 Ida. 153. (3) The special scheme or plan provided in article 8, section 28, is preclusive. St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 317; State ex rel. v. Clifford, 228 Mo. 194; St. Louis v. Transfer Co., 256 Mo. 476; Ackerman v. Green, 201 Mo. 231.

E. M. Harber, City Counselor, M. A. Fyke and J. C. Petherbridge, Assistant City Counselors, for defendants.

(1) The Legislature has expressly conferred upon Kansas City the power of eminent domain. Secs. 9754, 9762, R. S. 1909. The charter expressly provides for the condemnation of property, real, personal or mixed, for public purposes, and to pay for such property by special assessments. Sec. 1, art. 1, Charter 1908; Pars. 2 and 3, sec. 1, art. 3, Charter 1908; Art. 6, Charter 1908. (2) A municipality, like Kansas City, operating under a special charter, has all the necessary implied powers to fully carry out and effectuate its express powers. Water Co. v. City of Aurora, 129 Mo. 575; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Hafner v. St. Louis, 161 Mo. 34; Haeussler v. St. Louis, 205 Mo. 656; 4 McQuillin, Munic. Corp. pp. 3080, 3084; Cunningham v. Ponca, 27 Okla. 858. (3) The property sought to be condemned is not dedicated for public use in law or in fact; it is a private enterprise owned, operated and maintained as such by private parties for hire, over which the municipality has no jurisdiction and in which the public has no interest and cannot use and enjoy except on payment of the sum exacted by the private owners thereof. Although the property may be devoted to a public or semi-public use for hire by private parties, as in this case, yet it may be condemned by the city for the same or another public use, if it is in the interest of the public to do so. The private right must yield to the public interest in such matters. 4 McQuillin, Munc. Corp. pp. 3131, 3136; Tacoma v. Nisqually Power Co., 57 Wash. 420; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. (47 U.S.) 507; Re Brooklyn, 143 N.Y. 596; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685. (4) The ordinance on which the proceeding is based is not indefinite and uncertain; nothing could be more specific and definite, as to just what the city is trying to do. Under the ordinance, the city is seeking to acquire by condemnation proceedings, for public use, only such property, real, personal and mixed, franchises, easements, contracts and leasehold interests, which are authorized by its charter and the law. Sec. 1, art. 1, Charter 1908; 4 McQuillin, Munc. Corp. pp. 3125, 3126; Christy's Adm'r. v. St. Louis, 20 Mo. 143; Cooley's Const. Lim. (3 Ed.) sec. 526; Pittsburg C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wolcott, 162 Ind. 399; Lewis Em. Dom. (3 Ed.) sec. 412; Stein v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 132 Ky. 330; Pac. P. Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Oregon Ry. Co., 163 F. 969; State v. Sheffield & Thompsonville Bridge Co., 81 Conn. 56; Re Brooklyn, 143 N.Y. 596; Red River Bridge Co. v. Clarksville, 33 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 176; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685; Cooley's Const. Lim. (5 Ed.) sec. 341. (5) Use by street cars is not illegal or improper. Haeussler v. St. Louis, 205 Mo. 684. (6) Special benefits are questions of fact for the jury. Par. 4, sec. 3, art. 6, p. 260, Charter 1908. (7) If the city has the power to construct a viaduct, then it has the power to acquire one already constructed, if suitable for public use...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • 127 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. 1939), 35923, State ex rel. Missouri Broadcasting Co. v. O'Malley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 2, 1939
    ...Ostmann v. Frey, 148 Mo.App. 271; 50 C. J., pp. 662, 706; State v. Johnson, 293 Mo. 302; State v. Burney, 193 Mo.App. 326; State v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; State v. Taylor, 268 Mo. 312; 32 Cyc. 625. (3) The motion for judgment on the pleadings confesses the truth of the respondent's return and ......
  • 246 S.W. 267 (Mo. 1922), The State ex inf. Barrett v. Maitland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 20, 1922
    ...Mo. Constitution; Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. 453; Kansas City v. Woerishoeffer, 249 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Realty Co. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; Brunn v. Kansas City, 216 Mo. 108; Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 257; Laws 1917, p. 433; 1 Lewis on Eminent Domain (3 Ed.) sec. 268, p. 675. ......
  • 88 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. 1935), State ex rel. Utilities Power & Light Corp. v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 20, 1935
    ...by relator, are such as to give the trial court jurisdiction of this cause. State ex rel. v. Trace, 237 Mo. 120; State ex rel. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 98; State ex rel. v. Duncan, 334 Mo. 743; State ex rel. v. Gates, 190 Mo. 553; State ex rel. v. Harris, 334 Mo. 719; Kelly v. Hurt, 61 Mo. 466; O......
  • 13 S.W.2d 1061 (Mo. 1929), 29073, State ex rel. Boyd v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 11, 1929
    ...belongs or if such court is attempting to exercise authority in excess of its jurisdiction in a particular case. State ex rel. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; State ex rel. v. Coon, 317 Mo. 691; State ex rel. v. Shain, 297 Mo. 379; State ex rel. v. Ittner, 304 Mo. 135; State ex rel. v. Shot, 304 Mo.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • 127 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. 1939), 35923, State ex rel. Missouri Broadcasting Co. v. O'Malley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 2, 1939
    ...Ostmann v. Frey, 148 Mo.App. 271; 50 C. J., pp. 662, 706; State v. Johnson, 293 Mo. 302; State v. Burney, 193 Mo.App. 326; State v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; State v. Taylor, 268 Mo. 312; 32 Cyc. 625. (3) The motion for judgment on the pleadings confesses the truth of the respondent's return and ......
  • 246 S.W. 267 (Mo. 1922), The State ex inf. Barrett v. Maitland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 20, 1922
    ...Mo. Constitution; Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. 453; Kansas City v. Woerishoeffer, 249 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Realty Co. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; Brunn v. Kansas City, 216 Mo. 108; Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 257; Laws 1917, p. 433; 1 Lewis on Eminent Domain (3 Ed.) sec. 268, p. 675. ......
  • 88 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. 1935), State ex rel. Utilities Power & Light Corp. v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 20, 1935
    ...by relator, are such as to give the trial court jurisdiction of this cause. State ex rel. v. Trace, 237 Mo. 120; State ex rel. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 98; State ex rel. v. Duncan, 334 Mo. 743; State ex rel. v. Gates, 190 Mo. 553; State ex rel. v. Harris, 334 Mo. 719; Kelly v. Hurt, 61 Mo. 466; O......
  • 13 S.W.2d 1061 (Mo. 1929), 29073, State ex rel. Boyd v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 11, 1929
    ...belongs or if such court is attempting to exercise authority in excess of its jurisdiction in a particular case. State ex rel. v. Thomas, 278 Mo. 85; State ex rel. v. Coon, 317 Mo. 691; State ex rel. v. Shain, 297 Mo. 379; State ex rel. v. Ittner, 304 Mo. 135; State ex rel. v. Shot, 304 Mo.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results