28 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. 1930), 29906, State ex rel. Beach v. Beach

Docket Nº29906
Citation28 S.W.2d 105, 325 Mo. 175
Opinion JudgeGANTT
Party NameThe State ex rel. Albert I. Beach et al., Constituting Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, v. Albert I. Beach, Henry McCune, Alfred Gossett, George Goldman, Charles Clark, David B. Childs, Jasper Bell, Clarence Burton, Ira B. Burns and Henry F. McElroy
AttorneyHenry M. Beardsley, Martin J. O'Donnell and Frank Schibsby for relators. John T. Barker, William H. Allen and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for respondents.
Judge PanelGantt, J. All concur, except Walker, J., who dissents. WALKER WALKER, J., (dissenting).
Case DateMay 15, 1930
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 105

28 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. 1930)

325 Mo. 175

The State ex rel. Albert I. Beach et al., Constituting Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City,

v.

Albert I. Beach, Henry McCune, Alfred Gossett, George Goldman, Charles Clark, David B. Childs, Jasper Bell, Clarence Burton, Ira B. Burns and Henry F. McElroy

No. 29906

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 15, 1930

Motion for Rehearing Overruled May 15, 1930.

Alternative writ made permanent.

Henry M. Beardsley, Martin J. O'Donnell and Frank Schibsby for relators.

(1) It stands admitted that the Police Commissioners (relators) acting in good faith, made their estimate of the needs of the police department for the fiscal year 1929-1930, and presented the same to the City Council, and that the members of the Council (respondents) refused to apportion the amount called for. Under such circumstances, neither the City Council nor the courts can question the wisdom of the estimate made. That matter is committed by legislative act to the Commissioners. It became the duty of the council to make the appropriation, and upon its refusal, mandamus lies against its members. Art. XIX, Chap. 72, R. S. 1919; Laws 1921, p. 478; Sec. 8919, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602; Sec. 8924, R. S. 1919; Riley v. City of Kansas, 31 Mo.App. 439; Hudgins v. School District, 312 Mo. 1; State v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45; Sec. 8946, R. S. 1919; Sec. 9798, R. S. 1909; Laws 1919, p. 557; Sec. 8935, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; Swendiz v. Power Co., 265 U.S. 322; State ex rel. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 853, 293 S.W. 399; State v. Schenck, 238 Mo. 429, 142 S.W. 263; State ex rel. v. Davis, 273 Mo. 660, 201 S.W. 529, National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 40 S.C. 237. (a) What the estimate is to be. Sec. 8926, R. S. 1919; State v. Field, 119 Mo. 613; State ex rel. v. Pike County, 114 Mo. 279; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. Lord v. St. Louis County Court, 34 Mo. 546; Am. Fire Alarm Co. v. Board of Police Comms., 285 Mo. 581; St. Louis v. Shields, 52 Mo. 354; Strother v. Kansas City, 283 Mo. 283, 223 S.W. 419; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 1 S.W.2d 1021; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 2 S.W.2d 713. (2) The estimate of the Board of Police Commissioners is the fulfillment of an administrative duty put upon them by the Legislature, and the city authorities cannot raise the question of the reasonableness of the estimate. State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 83; In re Birmingham Drainage District, 274 Mo. 140; Schaub v. St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116; State ex rel. Rhoades v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 547; State ex rel. v. Pub. Serv. Commission, 275 Mo. 201; 36 Cyc. 971; Fleming v. Wengler, 269 Mo. 366; Madder v. Topeka, 106 Kan. 867, 189 P. 969; Kansas City v. Lievi, 298 Mo. 569; Gooch v. Town of Exeter, 70 N.H. 413; Arnett v. State ex rel. Donahue, 168 Ind. 180; Wiggin v. City of Manchester, 72 N.H. 576, 58 A. 522; Baker v. Barry, 77 N.H. 198, 90 A. 180; Craig v. O'Rear, 190 Ky. 553, 251 S.W. 828; Redmond & Company v. Securities Co., 222 Mich. 1, 192 N.W. 688; Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394; Kansas City Sou. Ry. Co. v. United States, 293 F. 11; McElderly v. Abercrombie, 213 Ala. 289, 104 So. 671; 46 C. J. 1018; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lake County, 287 Ill. 337, 122 N.E. 526; Catholic Bishops of Chicago v. Village of Pallas Park, 286 Ill. 400, 122 N.E. 561; Cartwright v. Warner, 60 N.Y.S. 769; Baker v. Nassau, 77 N.H. 347; 43 C. J. 823; Downs v. Swan, 111 Md. 53, 73 A. 653; Dangel v. Williams, 99 A. 84; 11 Del. Ch. 213; City of Montgomery v. Taxi Co., 203 Ala. 103, 82 S.W. 101; State ex rel. v. Board of Revenue, 209 Ala. 98, 95 S.W. 374; 12 C. J. 859; 29 Cyc. 1426. (3) The Board of Police Commissioners, in making an estimate under Section 8926, acts judicially; and when it makes the estimate, the amount thereof is equivalent to a judgment; and upon certifying the same to the municipal assembly, the municipal assembly cannot shirk its duty by making a collateral attack upon the estimate. State ex rel. v. County Court, 137 Mo.App. 689; State v. John D. Shelton, 314 Mo. 333; Black on Judgments (2 Ed.) sec. 532; Carroll v. Board of Police Commissioners, 28 Miss. 38; 34 C. J. 519; State ex rel. v. Bank, 279 Mo. 228; State v. Edwards, 192 Mo.App. 413; Fitzgerald v. De Soto etc. Dist., 195 S.W. 695; Jefferson City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser, 300 S.W. 778; Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel., 191 Ind. 335; Wright v. Railway Co., 101 Miss. 470; Campbell v. Younson, 114 N.W. 415; Tyson v. Washington County, 110 N.W. 634; Queens v. Atlanta, 59 Ga. 318. (4) If the question of the necessity, wisdom and reasonableness of the estimate made by the Police Commissioners were not a matter to be determined entirely by the Police Commissioners, but one which it was within the jurisdiction of the court to determine, the necessity, wisdom and reasonableness of the estimate is demonstrated by all the testimony. There is no concrete testimony to the contrary. The items of the data or budget presented with the estimate are all in fact necessary to the fulfillment by the Commissioners of the duties imposed upon them. (5) There is no estoppel here or waiver because the Police Commissioners continued to draw warrants for the payment of the men employed by them in the police department after the City Council had apportioned $ 1,150,000. State ex rel. v. Cape Girardeau etc. Co., 207 Mo. 85; State ex rel. v. Powder Mfg. Co., 259 Mo. 254; 21 C. J. 217; Lancaster v. Ry. Co., 298 F. 488; Bistline v. United States, 229 F. 546; Tranbarger v. Railroad Co., 250 Mo. 55; Sanitary District v. United States, 266 U.S. 405; Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196; Moss v. Hamilton, 303 Mo. 302; State ex rel. v. Dearing, 274 S.W. 477; Eberhardt Construction Co. v. Board, 100 Kan. 394, 164 P. 281. (6) These police statutes should be liberally construed. Rozelle v. Harmon, 103 Mo. 339; Day v. Baker, 36 Mo. 125. (7) Even if we concede that the data furnished with the estimate was inaccurate, yet since the statute required the Commissioners to certify only the estimate, the fact that they submitted the data upon which the estimate was based does not vitiate the estimate or absolve the respondents from their duty to appropriate the amount thereof. Broadhead v. Berg, 76 Mo. 136; Gratz v. Wycoff, 165 Mo.App. 196; Boonville ex rel. v. Stephens, 238 Mo. 338. (8) The statute of amendment applies to writs of mandamus, and, if for any reason the court should think that the alternative writ should be amended to conform to the proof, then we ask that the court grant leave to amend in accordance with the statutes and grant its peremptory instruction. Sec. 1290, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Klatz v. Ross, 118 Mo. 23; State ex rel. Davis v. Schmitz, 36 Mo.App. 550; State ex inf. v. Gas Co., 254 Mo. 515; State ex rel. Oil Co. v. Baggott, 96 Mo. 63; State ex rel. Wear v. Francis, 95 Mo. 444; School District v. Lauderbaugh, 80 Mo. 190; State ex rel. v. Hudson, 226 Mo. 239; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo.App. 463; State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 183 Mo.App. 28; State ex rel. v. Bourne, 151 Mo.App. 104; State ex rel. Holmes v. Lead Co., 178 S.W. 298.

John T. Barker, William H. Allen and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for respondents.

(1) The Legislature has determined for itself the personnel of the Kansas City police force. The Commissioners have not been authorized to either create offices or to fix salaries. If the board should make an appointment to a position not created by the Legislature, such appointee could not maintain a suit against Kansas City for salary, and these Commissioners cannot maintain such a suit for him. City ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 48; Bullis v. Chicago, 235 Ill. 472, 85 N.E. 615; Am. Fire Alarm Co. v. Board, 285 Mo. 598; Sanderson v. Pike County, 195 Mo. 605; State ex rel. v. Patterson, 152 Mo.App. 268; Holman v. Macon, 155 Mo.App. 402; State ex rel. Stewart v. Wofford, 116 Mo. 223; Gammon v. Lafayette County, 76 Mo. 676; Gersch v. Chicago, 95 N.E. 631; Moon v. City of Champaign, 73 N.E. 408; McNeill v. Chicago, 72 N.E. 452; State ex rel. Fredericks v. Canavan, 30 P. 1080. (2) The Police Commissioners are creatures of statute. They have no other powers than those conferred upon them by the statutes. In presenting their request to the Council for their appropriation, they acted in bad faith and in excess of their statutory powers, and the estimate presented was an illegal one. Art. 19, Chap. 72, R. S. 1919; Secs. 8913, 8914, 8919, 8926, 8924, 8935, 8946 8955, 8964, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 269 Mo. 608; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Jost, 265 Mo. 79; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 57; State ex rel. Campbell v. Police Commissioners, 14 Mo.App. 310; State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Smiley, 304 Mo. 557; Merchants Exchange v. Knott, 212 Mo. 641. (3) The estimate of the Police Commissioners is not conclusive upon Kansas City. It may question waste and extravagance. It may question the right of the Commissioners to create offices not authorized by the Legislature and to fix salaries. It may question all expenditures not authorized by the Legislature. Kansas City v. Hyde, 196 Mo. 507; Am. Fire Alarm Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners, 285 Mo. 581. (4) Many of the items set out in the budget request to the Council were outside of the statutes and illegal. Mandamus will never lie to compel the allowance of an illegal claim or an unauthorized claim. The rule in mandamus is that either the entire relief must be granted or no relief of any kind can be granted. State ex rel. v. Hudson, 226 Mo. 263; United States v. County of Macon, 99 U.S. 591; United States v. County of Clark, 95 U.S. 773; United States v. Labette County, 7 F. 320; Supervisors v. United States, 85 U.S. 77; State of Indiana v. Winterrowd, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 888; People ex rel. O'Loughlin v. Board, 152...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • 136 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1940), 35945, State ex rel. Volker v. Carey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 22, 1940
    ...v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; American Fire Alarm Co. v. Commissioners, 285 Mo. 581; State ex rel. v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175, 28 S.W.2d 105; State ex rel. Field v. Smith, 329 Mo. 1019, 49 S.W.2d 79; Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 491; State ex rel. Car......
  • 174 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. 1943), 38447, State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 6, 1943
    ...ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; State ex rel. Board of Police Commissioners v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175, 28 S.W.2d 105. (9) The circuit court was authorized to fix the amount of relators' allowance. After it had done so, there were no disputed issue......
  • 231 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. 1950), 41795, State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 13, 1950
    ...State ex rel. Special Road Dist. v. Holman, 305 Mo. 195; State ex rel. Markwell v. Colt, 199 S.W.2d 413; State ex rel. Beach v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Clark, 53 Mo. 214; State v. Etcheson, 178 Ind. 592, 99 N.E. 996; State v. Anderson, 170 Ind. 540, 85 N.E. 17. (5) It ......
  • 28 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. 1930), 30251, State ex rel. McCaskill v. Hall
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 15, 1930
    ...The various elements of the ownership of modern city property are so numerous and so complex that if commissioners were compelled [325 Mo. 175] to segregate and value separately each particular interest therein, their work being frequently halted to await settlement in court of the controve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • 136 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1940), 35945, State ex rel. Volker v. Carey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 22, 1940
    ...v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; American Fire Alarm Co. v. Commissioners, 285 Mo. 581; State ex rel. v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175, 28 S.W.2d 105; State ex rel. Field v. Smith, 329 Mo. 1019, 49 S.W.2d 79; Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 491; State ex rel. Car......
  • 174 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. 1943), 38447, State ex rel. Gentry v. Becker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 6, 1943
    ...ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51; State ex rel. Board of Police Commissioners v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175, 28 S.W.2d 105. (9) The circuit court was authorized to fix the amount of relators' allowance. After it had done so, there were no disputed issue......
  • 231 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. 1950), 41795, State ex rel. Taylor v. Wade
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 13, 1950
    ...State ex rel. Special Road Dist. v. Holman, 305 Mo. 195; State ex rel. Markwell v. Colt, 199 S.W.2d 413; State ex rel. Beach v. Beach, 325 Mo. 175; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Clark, 53 Mo. 214; State v. Etcheson, 178 Ind. 592, 99 N.E. 996; State v. Anderson, 170 Ind. 540, 85 N.E. 17. (5) It ......
  • 28 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. 1930), 30251, State ex rel. McCaskill v. Hall
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 15, 1930
    ...The various elements of the ownership of modern city property are so numerous and so complex that if commissioners were compelled [325 Mo. 175] to segregate and value separately each particular interest therein, their work being frequently halted to await settlement in court of the controve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results