Asphalt & Granitoid Const. Co. v. Hauessler

Citation100 S.W. 14,201 Mo. 400
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Decision Date22 February 1907
PartiesASPHALT & GRANITOID CONST. CO. v. HAUESSLER.

A general city ordinance provided that in all streets of 50 and under 60 feet in width the sidewalks should be 10 feet wide. A subsequent special ordinance providing for the improvement of a street 50 feet wide where it extended in front of defendant's property established a roadway 36 feet wide, the center line of which was 20 feet from defendant's line, which necessitated a sidewalk in front of plaintiff's property two feet wide. The city charter provided that no special ordinance in conflict with a prior general ordinance should be valid. Held, that the special ordinance was invalid.

3. SAME — ASSESSMENTS — PROPERTY LIABLE — EXTENT OF PROPERTY.

St. Louis City charter, art. 6, § 18, provides that whenever the estimated special taxes to be assessed against any property shall amount to more than 25 per cent. of its assessed value, "calculating a depth to such property of 150 feet," the excess should be paid out of the general revenue fund. Held, that a special assessment for improvement of a street must be confined to that part of the property within 150 feet of the street.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferris, Judge.

Action by the Asphalt & Granitoid Construction Company against Herman A. Hauessler. Judgment in the St. Louis Court of Appeals (see 80 S. W. 5), reversing by a divided court the judgment of the circuit court for plaintiff, and the case is certified to the Supreme Court. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.

This is a suit on a special tax bill for the improvement of a street in the city of St. Louis, and was instituted in the circuit court of that city, where a judgment was rendered sustaining the validity of the bill and adjudged a foreclosure of the lien against appellant's property. He appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed by a divided court, and the dissenting judge has certified the cause to this court because, in his opinion, the opinion of the court is in conflict with the decisions of this court. There seems to be no dispute regarding the facts in the case, and, as they appear to be fully and fairly stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will adopt its statement, with a few slight additions. It is as follows: "Wyoming street in the city of St. Louis extends east and west from east of Oregon avenue to Gravois avenue, and beyond, and is open for the uniform width of 60 feet except in the block between Nebraska and Pennsylvania avenues, where it is only 50 feet wide. On the south side of the street appellant Hauessler owns the entire block of ground between those avenues, which has a frontage of 270 feet by 611.58 feet deep, and the narrowness of the street in that block in comparison with its breadth elsewhere, is caused by the projection of his land 10 feet beyond the street's south line as it extends east and west of the block and beyond Nebraska and Pennsylvania avenues." In March, 1889, the municipal assembly of the city of St. Louis passed an ordinance entitled: "An ordinance to improve Wyoming street between Oregon and Gravois avenues and to establish the width of the roadway of the part thereof between Nebraska and Pennsylvania avenues." Said ordinance directed that Wyoming street between Oregon and Gravois avenues be improved by grading curbing, guttering, and paving the roadway with Telford pavement, and prescribed various specifications as to the details of the work, the cost of which it enacted should be charged as a lien on the adjoining property, except as contemplated surplus over and above 25 per cent. of the assessed value of the adjacent lots, which excess the city was to bear and an appropriation to pay it was made. The width of the roadway in front of the block of ground on the south side, owned by appellant, was fixed by section 4 of said ordinance as follows: "The width of the roadway on the part of Wyoming street between Nebraska and Pennsylvania avenues is hereby established at 36 feet; the center line of the roadway to be 30 feet south of the north line of Wyoming street as now opened.

Pursuant to this ordinance said street was curbed, guttered and paved between Oregon and Gravois avenues as provided, the curbing on the north side being set at the uniform distance of 12 feet from the north line of the street, and on the south side the same distance from the south line of the street except in front of appellant's block between Nebraska and Pennsylvania avenues, where the curb was set only two feet from the south line of the street and the roadway was graded up to the curb pursuant to said section 4, which fixed the center of the roadway 30 feet south of the north line of the street and, of course, left only 20 feet from the center of the roadway to the south line of the street, of which 18 feet were taken up by the roadway, thus leaving two feet between the curb and the north line of the appellant's ground, or the south line of the street. Both before the work was begun, and during its progress, Hauessler notified the Asphalt & Granitoid Construction Company, which had the contract for the improvement, that he objected to the improvement being made, and would not pay for it. Tax bills were afterwards issued against the abutting property; one for $696.48 against the appellant's block, which is the subject-matter of this action. Osterhaus, the city official who calculated the assessments for the work and made out the tax bills, testified: "Under the ordinance the street was to be improved between these two streets 36 feet wide, commencing at the north line of Wyoming street at the building line. That gave sidewalk of 12 feet on the north side. Then the other was for 36 feet of roadway and 2 feet of sidewalk in front of defendant's property. 50 feet in all." At the time the work was ordered the following general ordinance in regard to the construction of sidewalks along streets in the city of St. Louis was in force. "In all streets of thirty and under thirty-eight and one-half feet in width the sidewalks shall be five and one-half feet wide; those of thirty-eight and one-half feet wide and under forty feet in width shall have sidewalks six and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • City of Clayton v. Nemours
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1942
    ...Quarry & Construction Co., 244 Mo. 479; Webb City v. Aylor, 163 Mo. App. 155, 163; Washington v. Mueller, 287 S.W. 856; Construction Company v. Hauessler, 201 Mo. 400; Peters v. St. Louis, 226 Mo. 62; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272, 313; 43 C.J. 186, 188; Ex parte Tarling, 241 S.W. 929, 933. ......
  • City of Clayton v. Nemours
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1942
    ... ... Mueller, 287 S.W. 856; Construction Company v ... Hauessler, 201 Mo. 400; Peters v. St. Louis, ... 226 Mo. 62; State v. Butler, ... ...
  • Ballentine v. Nester
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1942
    ...v. St. Louis, 76 Mo. 402; St. Louis v. Gleason, 89 Mo. 67; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 309; Construction Co. v. Hauessler, 201 Mo. 400; Louis v. Atlantic, 244 Mo. 479; Hillig v. St. Louis, 337 Mo. 291. (a) Ordinance 41804 is not a bona-fide regulation of the pe......
  • Ballentine v. Nester, 38043.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1942
    ... ... 272; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 309; Construction Co. v. Hauessler, 201 Mo. 400; St. Louis v. Atlantic, 244 Mo. 479; Hillig v. St. Louis, 337 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT