Schopp v. City of St. Louis

Decision Date19 June 1893
Citation22 S.W. 898,117 Mo. 131
PartiesSCHOPP et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

St. Louis City Charter, art. 3, § 26, giving such city power "to regulate the use of streets," does not authorize it to enact an ordinance for the licensing of spaces on a street in front of business houses for produce dealers' stands, such a use of the street being unlawful, and a nuisance to the abutting owners and to the public.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; J. E. Withrow, Judge.

Action by Conrad Schopp and others against the city of St. Louis and others to enjoin defendant city from leasing stands on the street in front of their property. A perpetual injunction was granted, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Wm. C. Marshall, Chas. S. Broadhead, and Leverett Bell, for appellants. Thos. B. Harvey, for respondents.

BLACK, C. J.

The city of St. Louis, by an ordinance enacted in due form of law, set apart that portion of Third and Broadway streets between Christy avenue and Howard street as a market "for farmers' and other wagons bringing produce to market for sale," and, by ordinance, gave the comptroller power to lease stands on and along that portion of the streets to such vendors of produce. The comptroller gave public notice that he would, on a given date, lease the stands for one year from the 1st April, 1890; and thereupon the plaintiffs brought this suit to enjoin the defendants from leasing stands in front of their property. The court awarded a perpetual injunction, as prayed for, and the defendants appealed. The evidence discloses the following further facts: Third and Broadway constitute one continuous street. The plaintiff Conrad Schopp owns a parcel of land, with a building thereon, fronting 20 feet on the west side of Third street, and the plaintiffs Lewedag & Co. are his tenants. The plaintiff Jacob Schopp owns another parcel, with buildings thereon, fronting on the east side of Third street, occupied by the plaintiffs the Jacob Schopp & Bro. Fruit & Produce Company, a corporation organized under the laws of this state. These tenants are engaged in the business of buying and selling, at wholesale and retail, fruits, vegetables, and other garden produce. They carry on a large business. The street in front of their buildings is from 55 to 60 feet wide, and has become a crowded thoroughfare for wagons and loaded vehicles because of cable railroads and the grades on adjacent streets. For four years prior to the commencement of this suit, the city had annually leased to hucksters spaces in front of the property owned and occupied by the plaintiffs, about 10 feet wide, and extending from the curb out into the street a distance of 15 or 17 feet. Spaces of 10 to 20 feet wide were left between the spaces so leased. The hucksters and others leasing the spaces come in on all week days before daylight, and back their wagons in on the leased spaces up against the curb. They stand on the sidewalk, and sell their produce from their wagons. As a rule, they remain until 8 or 9 o'clock in the forenoon, but it appears they often remain until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The proof is clear to the effect that these market wagons materially interfere with the business carried on by the plaintiffs, by causing the street to become blockaded; and they render it difficult and often impossible for the plaintiffs to get their wagons up to the curb in front of their houses. Parts of these streets between Christy avenue and Howard street have been used for such market purposes since 1861, and perhaps longer, but the street in front of the buildings owned and occupied by the plaintiffs was not so used until four years before the commencement of this suit.

An abutting property owner has the same right to the use of the street that the public have, and, in addition thereto, he has rights which are special to himself, as the right of ingress and egress, and this right is a property right which he may protect. Ferrenbach v. Turner, 86 Mo. 416; Glaessner v. Association, 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. Rep. 707. An obstruction in a street or highway may be both a public and a private nuisance, and in such cases the private citizen who is specially injured may have injunctive relief. Glaessner v. Association, supra; McDonald v. Newark, 42 N. J. Eq. 136, 7 Atl. Rep. 855; Elliott, Roads & S. 496. That the plaintiffs here are specially injured admits of no doubt, but it is insisted by the defendants that the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Wilhoit v. City of Springfield
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1943
    ...streets does not include the right to park. This holding as applied to our statute is in direct conflict with our decisions. Schopp v. City of St. Louis, 117 Mo. 131; Barker v. Hasler, supra. It is directly held by the Supreme Court of Minnesota that the implied power to tax is limited to t......
  • Wilhoit v. City of Springfield
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1943
    ... ... Both are equally important and neither is merely ... incidental to the other. It requires both powers to sustain ... it. City of St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600; ... City of St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 387 ... (b) It is manifest that the license fee is imposed for the ... park. This holding as applied to our statute is in direct ... conflict with our decisions. Schopp v. City of St ... Louis, 117 Mo. 131; Barker v. Hasler, supra ... It ... is directly held by the Supreme Court of Minnesota that the ... implied ... ...
  • Siemers v. St. Louis Electric Terminal Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1941
    ...386; Mahany v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 254 S.W. 16; Lewis v. Ry. Co., 50 S.W.2d 122; Willard v. Robertson, 129 S.W.2d 911; Schopp v. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 131, 22 S.W. 898; Siemers v. St. Louis Elec. Term. Ry. Co., 343 1201, 125 S.W.2d 865. (a) While there was admittedly excavation in Franklin A......
  • State Ex Inf. Jones v. Light And Development Company of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1912
    ...what are lawful uses of a public street. Glaessner v. Brewing Assn., 100 Mo. 508; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 161 Mo. 371; Schopp v. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 131; Lackland v. Railroad, 31 Mo. 186; Lockwood Railroad, 122 Mo. 86; Knapp Stout & Co. v. Transfer Co., 126 Mo. 36; State ex rel. v. Murph......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • PROPERTY LAW'S SEARCH FOR A PUBLIC.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 5, June 2020
    • June 1, 2020
    ...Swinson v. Cutter Realty Co., 156 S.E. 545 (N.C. 1931); Chapman v. City of Lincoln, 121 N.W. 596 (Neb. 1909); Schopp v. City of St. Louis, 22 S.W. 898 (Mo. 1893). A recent example from Chicago involved the city's deal with the Chicago Cubs whereby the city vacated certain sidewalks as the t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT