State v. City of St. Louis
Decision Date | 25 June 1898 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE ex rel. NATIONAL SUBWAY CO. OF MISSOURI et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
In banc. Application for mandamus, on relation of the National Subway Company of Missouri and others, against the board of public improvements of the city of St. Louis and others. Writ granted.
Boyle, Priest & Lehmann, S. H. King, and Jas. M. Lewis, for relators. B. Schnurmacher and Chas. C. Allen, for respondents.
This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the city of St. Louis, and its board of public improvements, and the members of the board, — viz. Robert E. McMath, president of said board, and M. L. Holman, water commissioner; Branch H. Colby, sewer commissioner; Franklin L. Ridgely, park commissioner; Charles H. Stone, harbor commissioner; and A. N. Milner, street commissioner, — to take action upon plans and specifications submitted by relators to said board on February 19, 1897, "for service and supply pipes connecting manholes in the subway constructed by virtue of the terms of Ordinances Nos. 14,798 and 15,953, located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Olive streets, with the areaway under the building and sidewalk located at said southwest corner of Broadway and Olive streets, and for a permit to do the work contemplated by the application. The original information or petition for the writ was filed May 24, 1897; and on the same day an alternative writ of mandamus was duly issued by order of this court, directed to the respondents, made returnable June 8, 1897. The writ was duly served, and on the day that it was made returnable, to wit, June 8, 1897, respondents filed their return thereto. Thereafter, on the ____ day of ____, 1897, relators were granted leave to file an amended information, upon which an amended alternative writ of mandamus was issued ____, 1897. The alternative writ of mandamus was amended by inserting the following averments: Respondents made return to the amended writ on October 21, 1897, in which they allege that Ordinances 14,798 and 15,953 are void, and that relators or any of them never at any time acquired any rights thereunder; and, for further return, they allege that the same issues are involved, and that the parties to this proceeding are the same parties or their privies who were parties to the suit of State v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784, 34 S. W. 51, and 35 S. W. 1132, in which there was judgment adversely to relators, and plead the judgment rendered in that case as res judicata to this proceeding. They also deny that relators are entitled to the relief sought under the allegations in the amended writ, notwithstanding they admit all material allegations in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Jamestown v. Pennsylvania Gas Co.
...v. Consumers' Gas Trust Co., 140 Ind. 114, 39 N. E. 433, 27 L. R. A. 514, 49 Am. St. Rep. 183; State ex rel. National Subway Co. v. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113. It is true, however, that in Ohio the courts have laid down a different doctrine. Newcomerstown v. Conso......
-
Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.
...The control of the state over the manner in which such companies shall deal with the public is implied. State v. City of St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 565, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113, reversing State v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784, 34 S. W. 51, 35 S. W. 1132, 34 L. R. A. 369, 56 Am. St. ......
-
Minn. Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.
...314. The control of the state over the manner in which such companies shall deal with the public is implied. State v. City of St. Louis, 145 Mo. 565, 46 S. W. 981,42 L. R. A. 113, reversing State v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784,34 S. W. 51,35 S. W. 1132,34 L. R. A. 369, 56 Am. St. Rep.......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., 34073.
...in all cases as persuasive elements to be considered by the court in cases involving forfeitures of franchise. State ex rel. Subway Co. v. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551. Doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied in cases where, under the circumstances of the case, right and justice requires. S......