City of St. Louis v. Buss

• Decision Date: 11 December 1900
• Citation: 159 Mo. 9,59 S.W. 969
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. BUSS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

59 S.W. 969

159 Mo. 9

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. BUSS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 11, 1900.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — SPECIAL ASSESSMENT — ASSESSMENT FOR BENEFITS — JURISDICTION OF COURT.

St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 7, provides that the board of commissioners appointed for the purpose of condemning land for public use shall also assess the benefits, subject to review by the court in which the proceedings are had, which is empowered to make such order as right and justice requires. Const. art. 2, § 21, requires compensation for property taken for a public use to be determined by the board of commissioners. Held, that a court appointing a board of commissioners has jurisdiction to modify its report as to the benefits to property owners, since the constitutional provision only applies to the assessment of damages for the taking, and does not make the report of the commissioners final as to the benefits derived from such taking.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; S. P. Spencer, Judge.

Proceedings by the city of St. Louis against John B. Buss and others for the condemnation of property for public use. From a decision modifying the report of the commissioners as to the benefits to certain property, the defendant the Hill-O'Meara Construction Company appeals. Affirmed.

Collins, Jamison & Chappell, for appellant. B. Schnurmacher, for respondents.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an appeal by the Hill-O'Meara Construction Company from a judgment of the St. Louis city circuit court, modifying and approving the report of the commissioners in a condemnation proceeding in said court, under article 6 of the charter of said city, by section 7 of which it is provided that the report of the commissioners "may be reviewed in the circuit court on written exceptions filed by either party in the clerk's office within ten days after the filing of such report and the court shall make such order therein as right and justice may require, and may order a new appraisement upon good cause shown." The proceeding was to condemn land for the opening of Euclid avenue from St. Louis avenue to the Natural Bridge, was regular, and in due time the commissioners filed their report, in which they found the value of the lands proposed to be taken for the highway to be the sum of $8,275, among which was certain land of the appellant for the taking of which they assessed its damages at $3,250. They also assessed against the city of St. Louis, as the amount of the benefit to the public generally, the sum of $100, and the remainder of the $8,275 they assessed against certain lands specially benefited by the improvement, among which were 11 lots belonging to the appellant, which were severally assessed for benefits. In due time appellant filed its exception to the report of the commissioners, claiming that the value allowed him for the land taken was inadequate, and the benefits assessed against its lots were excessive. Upon the hearing of the exceptions, the court set aside the assessment against three, and reduced the assessment against five, of the appellant's lots, overruled the other exceptions, and increased the assessment against the city to $386.75; to which action of the court the city made no...