417 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1967), 52776, State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley

Docket Nº52776.
Citation417 S.W.2d 1
Party NameSTATE ex rel. George SCHWAB, Relator, v. James T. RILEY, Special Judge, Circuit Court of Moniteau County, Respondent.
Case DateJuly 10, 1967
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 1

417 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1967)

STATE ex rel. George SCHWAB, Relator,

v.

James T. RILEY, Special Judge, Circuit Court of Moniteau

County, Respondent.

No. 52776.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

July 10, 1967

Page 2

John C. Kibbe, California, Mo., John W. Inglish, Cullen Coil, Jefferson City, Carson, Inglish, Monaco & Coil, Jefferson City, of counsel for respondent.

Roger D. Hines, Columbia, for relator.

HOLMAN, Chief Justice.

In this original proceeding in prohibition relator seeks to prevent the respondent, as Special Judge of the Circuit Court of Moniteau County, from proceeding further in the case of City of California, Missouri, vs. Walter H. Oesterly et al. Relator is a defendant in that case. The regular judge overruled a motion to dismiss, and respondent overruled a motion to stay proceedings, and we thereafter issued our provisional rule upon petition of relator.

The facts have been stipulated and a brief statement thereof will suffice for our decision. The City of California, Missouri (hereinafter sometimes called the 'city'), is a city of the fourth class. Relator is a resident, property owner, and taxpayer of said city. On December 5, 1966, the board

Page 3

of aldermen of the city passed Ordinance No. 801 which directed the city to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire several hundred acres of land located outside the city limits for use in constructing and maintaining sewage lagoons thereon. Also directed to be acquired were easements a considerable distance in length for roadway and sewer line purposes.

On December 6, 1966, the city filed its petition, which became Case No. 4744, seeking to condemn the property and easements heretofore mentioned. On January 12, 1967, relator and others filed a petition for declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against the city in which relator and the other plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance heretofore referred to was void for a number of reasons, including the contention that § 79.380 (statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) does not authorize the taking of property for sewage lagoons. Also, on January 12, 1967, upon motion of relator and others, the regular judge was disqualified in the condemnation proceedings and respondent was thereafter assigned to preside in that case. On the morning of January 25, 1967, respondent overruled the motion filed by relator and certain other defendants to stay proceedings in Case No. 4744 until after the declaratory judgment suit (No. 4750) was decided. Later that day, relator filed his petition for prohibition, we issued a stop order, and on February 13, 1967, issued a provisional rule.

The primary contention of relator is that 'a city of the fourth class does not have the power to condemn private property outside its limits for use as sewerage lagoons or roadways.' He correctly asserts that '(t)he right of eminent domain is not inherent in municipalities and cannot be exercised by them...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • 616 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. 1981), 62179, Bank of Crestwood v. Gravois Bank
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 11, 1981
    ...432 S.W.2d 245, 251 (Mo. 1968); Edwards v. St. Louis County, 429 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Mo. banc 1968); State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 1967); State ex rel. Wright v. Carter, 319 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo. banc 1958). See Central Bank of Clayton v. State Banking Board, 509 S.W.......
  • 474 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App. 1971), 33985, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pinkley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 28, 1971
    ...and the primary purpose of all statutory construction is to determine the intent of the legislature. State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, Mo., 417 S.W.2d 1. The Commission first seeks to justify its action on the grounds that by Article IV, § 30(b), subsection (3)(b), Const. 1945, it may expend s......
  • 490 S.W.2d 301 (Mo.App. 1972), 25406, Derboven v. Stockton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • December 20, 1972
    ...En Banc 1970), l.c. 7. Edwards v. St. Louis County, 429 S.W.2d 718 (Mo.Sup. En Banc 1968), l.c. 722. State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. En Banc 1967), l.c. 3--4. In aid of that determination, certain recognized rules of principles of construction may be utilized to determine l......
  • 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo.App. W.D. 2014), WD 76068, City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., LLC
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • January 14, 2014
    ...in the statute, and we will not imply or infer such right from " ‘ vague or doubtful language.’ " State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1967). Consistent with Article VI, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution, the legislature has enacted many comprehensive sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • 616 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. 1981), 62179, Bank of Crestwood v. Gravois Bank
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 11, 1981
    ...432 S.W.2d 245, 251 (Mo. 1968); Edwards v. St. Louis County, 429 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Mo. banc 1968); State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 1967); State ex rel. Wright v. Carter, 319 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo. banc 1958). See Central Bank of Clayton v. State Banking Board, 509 S.W.......
  • 474 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App. 1971), 33985, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pinkley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 28, 1971
    ...and the primary purpose of all statutory construction is to determine the intent of the legislature. State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, Mo., 417 S.W.2d 1. The Commission first seeks to justify its action on the grounds that by Article IV, § 30(b), subsection (3)(b), Const. 1945, it may expend s......
  • 490 S.W.2d 301 (Mo.App. 1972), 25406, Derboven v. Stockton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • December 20, 1972
    ...En Banc 1970), l.c. 7. Edwards v. St. Louis County, 429 S.W.2d 718 (Mo.Sup. En Banc 1968), l.c. 722. State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. En Banc 1967), l.c. 3--4. In aid of that determination, certain recognized rules of principles of construction may be utilized to determine l......
  • 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo.App. W.D. 2014), WD 76068, City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., LLC
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • January 14, 2014
    ...in the statute, and we will not imply or infer such right from " ‘ vague or doubtful language.’ " State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1967). Consistent with Article VI, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution, the legislature has enacted many comprehensive sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results