351 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. 1961), 48554, Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co.

Docket Nº:48554.
Citation:351 S.W.2d 717
Party Name:Florence K. ARATA and Carmen V. Arata, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Case Date:November 13, 1961
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 717

351 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. 1961)

Florence K. ARATA and Carmen V. Arata, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 48554.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 13, 1961

Motion for Rehearing or for Transfer to Court en Banc Denied Dec. 11, 1961.

Page 718

Carroll J. Donohue, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Elson & Jones, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Coburn, Croft & Cook, Richmond C. Coburn, Alan C. Kohn, Edwin J. Putzell, Jr., St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

HOLMAN, Commissioner.

In this action plaintiffs sought to recover from defendant actual and punitive damages in the total sum of $200,000. The defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended petition was sustained and a judgment of dismissal was entered accordingly. Plaintiffs have duly appealed.

Page 719

Plaintiffs alleged in their amended petition that they were the owners of certain land located in St. Louis County, Missouri; that defendant had acquired 152 acres of land on the east side of Lindbergh Boulevard and 100 acres on the west side thereof and had erected thereon certain offices, laboratories, and other buildings; that from and after 1953 defendant had repeatedly sought to purchase or lease all or a portion of plaintiffs' tract of land for use in connection with its operations in that vicinity; that defendant announced that it intended to build an overpass over Lindbergh Boulevard south of Olive Street Road for its convenience in the integration of its operations in that area; that negotiations for the purchase or lease of plaintiffs' property by defendant were not successful and said negotiations were terminated by defendant on April 14, 1957.

It was further alleged by plaintiff that 'thereafter, the State Highway Commission of the State of Missouri did file a petition for the condemnation of certain property in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, the alleged purpose of which condemnation was for the construction of a cloverleaf traffic exchange on U. S. Highway 66 and the relocation of Olive Street Road approximately eight hundred feet (800') south of its then intersection with the said Lindbergh Boulevard and which purpose was alleged to be public in nature but which purpose was solely to place said road at a point where it could serve as a convenient mode of ingress and egress for defendant and not for a public purpose. The said petition included the following described property owned by the plaintiffs [description omitted]; * * * that said condemnation was not for a public purpose but was for a private purpose, in that the condemnation was undertaken for the purpose and with the intention of facilitating and integrating the development of defendant, Monsanto Chemical Company, in the vicinity of Lindbergh Road and Olive Street Road by affording a large and convenient mode of ingress and egress to defendant's property. Plaintiffs further state that the facts concerning said road and its private use was not revealed to the court and that the said court, in ordering condemnation, had no knowledge or information of the actual purpose of the said condemnation. * * * That the defendant, through substantial private contributions of money and land for the acquisition of said land and the building of said road succeeded in having the State Highway Commission institute and process the said condemnation for the purpose of acquiring an overpass for the convenience of defendant's development in the vicinity of Lindbergh and Olive Street Roads, and that, after its failure to negotiate successfully a purchase or lease of plaintiffs' property for said purpose, it induced and instigated the said State Highway Commission to condemn plaintiffs' land for said purpose.' The petition concluded with allegations concerning plaintiffs' damages and a prayer for the aggregate amount heretofore stated.

Defendant's verified motion to dismiss is as follows: 'Comes now the defendant, Monsanto Chemical Company, and moves the court to dismiss the above-entitled cause for the reason that the plaintiffs' amended petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

'Further, the defendant states that on or about the 15th day of April, 1958, the Missouri State Highway Commission filed an action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to obtain by condemnation title to a tract or tracts of land described on pages 3 and 4 of the plaintiffs' amended petition. That said cause was No. 222918 of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, and was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
31 practice notes
  • 451 S.W.3d 724 (Mo.App. W.D. 2014), WD76861, City of Kansas City v. Powell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 7 Octubre 2014
    ...or be benefited by a contemplated improvement. Benefit to any considerable number is sufficient.'" Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 351 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Mo. 1961) (quoting Kansas City v. Liebi, 252 S.W. 404, 408 (Mo. banc 1923)). Powell's property was condemned for the purpose of constr......
  • 972 S.W.2d 416 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998), WD 53765, City of Smithville v. St. Luke's Northland Hosp. Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 21 Abril 1998
    ...community or any large part of it should actually use or be benefited" by the proposed use. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Company, 351 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Mo.1961) (quoting In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 252 S.W. at 408). Furthermore, private entities' operations can be considered pu......
  • 415 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1967), 51620, Strandberg v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 Mayo 1967
    ...said that § 28 of Art. I is violated although some private person might incidentally make a profit. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co., Mo., 351 S.W.2d 717; City of Clayton v. Nemours, 353 Mo. 61, 182 S.W.2d 57; In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 298 Mo. 569, 252 S.W. 404, 28 A.L.R. 295. Th......
  • 459 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. 1970), 55091, Wells v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Octubre 1970
    ...court was at liberty to consult its own files to determine what happened in the first case, Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Company, Mo., 351 S.W.2d 717, 721(5), and we think we must accept the finding that plaintiffs' judgment against Mr. Riley was not taken by default, but was entered after a ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
31 cases
  • 451 S.W.3d 724 (Mo.App. W.D. 2014), WD76861, City of Kansas City v. Powell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 7 Octubre 2014
    ...or be benefited by a contemplated improvement. Benefit to any considerable number is sufficient.'" Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 351 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Mo. 1961) (quoting Kansas City v. Liebi, 252 S.W. 404, 408 (Mo. banc 1923)). Powell's property was condemned for the purpose of constr......
  • 972 S.W.2d 416 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998), WD 53765, City of Smithville v. St. Luke's Northland Hosp. Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 21 Abril 1998
    ...community or any large part of it should actually use or be benefited" by the proposed use. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Company, 351 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Mo.1961) (quoting In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 252 S.W. at 408). Furthermore, private entities' operations can be considered pu......
  • 415 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1967), 51620, Strandberg v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 Mayo 1967
    ...said that § 28 of Art. I is violated although some private person might incidentally make a profit. Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Co., Mo., 351 S.W.2d 717; City of Clayton v. Nemours, 353 Mo. 61, 182 S.W.2d 57; In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 298 Mo. 569, 252 S.W. 404, 28 A.L.R. 295. Th......
  • 459 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. 1970), 55091, Wells v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Octubre 1970
    ...court was at liberty to consult its own files to determine what happened in the first case, Arata v. Monsanto Chemical Company, Mo., 351 S.W.2d 717, 721(5), and we think we must accept the finding that plaintiffs' judgment against Mr. Riley was not taken by default, but was entered after a ......
  • Free signup to view additional results