Walters v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 23 December 1895
• Citation: 33 S.W. 441,132 Mo. 1
• Parties: WALTERS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

33 S.W. 441

132 Mo. 1

WALTERS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 23, 1895.

STREET IMPROVEMENT — DAMAGES TO ABUTTING PROPERTY — WHEN RECOVERED.

The owner of a corner lot is not entitled to damages caused by the erection of a bridge on one of the streets bounding the lot, where

the value of the property is enhanced by the construction of such bridge.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; D. D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Maria E. Walters against the city of St. Louis to recover damages to a lot caused by the erection of a bridge by defendant on the street near plaintiff's property. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action against the defendant for damages to plaintiff's property, which she alleges it sustained by reason of the erection of a bridge by the city alongside of her property on Twenty-First street. The petition alleges that the plaintiff owned a lot on the northeast corner of Twenty-First and Randolph streets, having a front of 30 feet on the north line of Randolph street by a depth northwardly of 100 feet on Twenty-First street. That on the 15th day of August, 1889, the city commenced, and has since completed, the construction of a bridge on Twenty-First street, which has the effect of depriving plaintiff of access to Twenty-First street, the abutment of the bridge alongside of plaintiff's property being about 15 feet high, and distant 15 feet from the west line of plaintiff's property. That the city condemned 20 feet off of the west part of plaintiff's lot, so as to widen Twenty-First street; that is, plaintiff's lot was originally 50 feet front, and the city condemned the west 20 feet thereof, and left plaintiff only 30 feet front. That the city paid plaintiff $12,000 for the property so appropriated, and that the remaining portion of plaintiff's property has been damaged $10,000. The specific damages alleged are that the bridge alongside of plaintiff's property is higher than the level of her property, and that the wind blows the dust and other deposits off the bridge into plaintiff's premises, thereby producing sickness, and reducing the rental value of the property; and that the proximity of the bridge to her property has reduced its market value correspondingly. The answer is a general denial. Under the evidence and instructions of the court, the jury returned a verdict for defendant, and after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

...