51 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1932), 30772, Meyering v. Miller

Docket Nº30772
Citation51 S.W.2d 65, 330 Mo. 885
Opinion JudgeHYDE
Party NameHarry J. Meyering, Appellant, v. Victor J. Miller, Mayor of the City of St. Louis; Louis Nolte, Comptroller of the City of St. Louis; William Buechner, Treasurer of the City of St. Louis; Edmund R. Kinsey, President of the Board of Public Service of the City of St. Louis, and the City of St. Louis
AttorneyFrank C. O'Malley for appellant. Julius T. Muench and Oliver Senti for respondents.
Judge PanelHyde, C. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., concur.
Case DateJune 13, 1932
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 65

51 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1932)

330 Mo. 885

Harry J. Meyering, Appellant,

v.

Victor J. Miller, Mayor of the City of St. Louis; Louis Nolte, Comptroller of the City of St. Louis; William Buechner, Treasurer of the City of St. Louis; Edmund R. Kinsey, President of the Board of Public Service of the City of St. Louis, and the City of St. Louis

No. 30772

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 13, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John T. Fitzsimmons, Judge.

Affirmed.

Frank C. O'Malley for appellant.

(1) The purchase of land in a section of the city remote from the existing hospitals and the erection thereon of a new hospital distinct from and unconnected with existing hospitals or institutions by use of the proceeds of the bonds authorized by Proposition Twelve, would constitute a diversion and misappropriation of public funds. Meyers v. Kansas City, 18 S.W.2d 900; State ex rel. v. Kansas City, 259 S.W. 1060; 25 C. J. 227. (2) Proposition Twelve should be strictly construed as to limit the use of the proceeds of the bonds to such purposes as are expressed in the proposition. Meyers v. Kansas City, 18 S.W.2d 900; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 309; Maryville v. Farmers Trust Co., 45 S.W.2d 103. (3) The interpretation of Proposition Twelve so as to permit the city to acquire land and erect a new hospital remote from existing hospitals or institutions would be reading into Proposition Twelve powers not conveyed or expressed, and would place a construction upon it which, if expressly contained therein, would make the proposition void, as submitting to the voters a double purpose. Hart v. Board of Education, 252 S.W. 441; State ex rel. City of Joplin v. Wilder, 217 Mo. 261; Willis v. School District of Sedalia, 253 S.W. 741; Levinworth v. Wilson, 69 Kan. 78.

Julius T. Muench and Oliver Senti for respondents.

(1) The funds provided by Proposition Twelve of the Bond Issue Ordinance may be lawfully used for extensions of the city's public hospital system. State ex rel. Kansas City v. Smith, 302 Mo. 594, 259 S.W. 1060. (a) The report of a legislative committee on a bill referred to it may be regarded as an exposition of the legislative intent where otherwise the meaning of a statute is obscure. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 65 L.Ed. 349; 36 Cyc. 1139. (2) The purposes for which the proceeds of municipal bonds may be used may be stated in general language. Hart v. Board of Education of Nevada School District, 229 Mo. 36, 252 S.W. 441. (3) A proposition to authorize the issuance of municipal bonds, when so construed as to make the proceeds available both for the erection of additions to existing hospitals and the erection of a new hospital, is not a dual proposition. Hart v. Board of Education of Nevada School District, 229 Mo. 36, 252 S.W. 441.

Hyde, C. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., concur.

OPINION

HYDE

[330 Mo. 887] This is an action by appellant, a resident taxpayer of the city of St. Louis, to enjoin the city and its officers from using the proceeds of bonds for the erection of a hospital and the acquisition of land therefor by condemnation. Nothing is before us except the pleadings, appellant having demurred to respondents' joint answer and return to the petition and to the order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued. The court overruled the demurrer and appellant declined to plead further. The court, thereupon, entered judgment dismissing appellant's bill and he has appealed therefrom.

The question here is the construction of the ordinance, which submitted the bond issue to the voters of the city and set forth the purposes for which the proceeds of the bonds should be used. The part of the ordinance involved herein is as follows:

"Proposition Twelve -- For the acquisition of land and the construction of additions to and extensions and equipment of public hospitals and institutions for the care of delinquents and the indigent tubercular, insane, feeble-minded, infirm, and sick patients, four million, five hundred thousand dollars ($ 4,500,000)."

The official ballot provided for was as follows:

"Proposition Twelve -- For the acquisition of land and the construction of additions and extensions and equipment of public hospitals and institutions for the care of delinquents and the indigent tubercular, insane, feeble-minded, infirm and sick patients, four million, five hundred thousand dollars ($ 4,500,000).

"For increase of debt, Proposition Twelve, YES.

"For increase of debt, Proposition Twelve, NO.

(Scratch one of the above.)"

Appellant's petition sets out that the city of St. Louis maintained two city hospitals, one of which was maintained for the care of negroes; that the city proposes to erect a new hospital for negroes upon a location more than four miles from either of the present hospitals; and that it has commenced suit for condemnation of land at such location for this purpose. The petition further alleges that this will be a misappropriation and misapplication of the funds voted at the bond election; that the cost of building and operating a new hospital will be much greater than if the same were built as an addition to either of the present hospitals; and that this is a damage [330 Mo. 888] to plaintiff and each and every taxpayer. Respondents' answer and return admits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • 165 So.2d 95 (Ala. 1964), 6 Div. 892, Wood v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 21, 1964
    ...owners for the taking of their Page 97 property for a right of way for the boulevard. [276 Ala. 547] Appellees rely on Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65, decided in 1932. There, the voters in St. Louis approved bonds, the proceeds of which were to be used 'For the acquisition of......
  • 448 P.2d 124 (Ariz.App. 1968), 2 CA-CIV 613, Sloatman v. Gibbons
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 10, 1968
    ...557] Page 127 than absolute release from payment. The word 'extend' means to 'enlarge,' 'continue,' or 'stretch out.' Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65 (1932); Crane Enamelware Company v. Smith, 168 Tenn. 203, 76 S.W.2d 644 (1934); State v. Zazzaro, 128 Conn. 160, 20 A.2d 737 (1......
  • 209 P.2d 910 (Colo. 1949), 16295, McNichols v. City & County of Denver ex rel. Newton
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • August 29, 1949
    ...Iron Co. v. City of South Omaha, 93 Neb. 56, 139 N.W. 848; Gillham v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 978; Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65, and Lewis v. City of Fort Worth, 126 Tex. 458, 89 S.W.2d 975, as illustrating liberal construction, and broad discretion vested ......
  • 124 S.W.2d 1072 (Mo. 1939), 35164, State ex rel. Wors v. Hostetter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1939
    ...In such construction of the statute the opinion conflicts with the following controlling decisions of this court: Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 892; State ex rel. v. Caulfield, 333 Mo. 277; O'Malley v. Life Ins. Co., 75 S.W.2d 839; Bowers v. Mo. Mut. Assn., 333 Mo. 505; Cummins v. Pub. Serv. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • 165 So.2d 95 (Ala. 1964), 6 Div. 892, Wood v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 21, 1964
    ...owners for the taking of their Page 97 property for a right of way for the boulevard. [276 Ala. 547] Appellees rely on Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65, decided in 1932. There, the voters in St. Louis approved bonds, the proceeds of which were to be used 'For the acquisition of......
  • 448 P.2d 124 (Ariz.App. 1968), 2 CA-CIV 613, Sloatman v. Gibbons
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 10, 1968
    ...557] Page 127 than absolute release from payment. The word 'extend' means to 'enlarge,' 'continue,' or 'stretch out.' Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65 (1932); Crane Enamelware Company v. Smith, 168 Tenn. 203, 76 S.W.2d 644 (1934); State v. Zazzaro, 128 Conn. 160, 20 A.2d 737 (1......
  • 209 P.2d 910 (Colo. 1949), 16295, McNichols v. City & County of Denver ex rel. Newton
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • August 29, 1949
    ...Iron Co. v. City of South Omaha, 93 Neb. 56, 139 N.W. 848; Gillham v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 978; Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 885, 51 S.W.2d 65, and Lewis v. City of Fort Worth, 126 Tex. 458, 89 S.W.2d 975, as illustrating liberal construction, and broad discretion vested ......
  • 124 S.W.2d 1072 (Mo. 1939), 35164, State ex rel. Wors v. Hostetter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1939
    ...In such construction of the statute the opinion conflicts with the following controlling decisions of this court: Meyering v. Miller, 330 Mo. 892; State ex rel. v. Caulfield, 333 Mo. 277; O'Malley v. Life Ins. Co., 75 S.W.2d 839; Bowers v. Mo. Mut. Assn., 333 Mo. 505; Cummins v. Pub. Serv. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results